The outdated 2nd amendment.

Jump to Last Post 151-200 of 519 discussions (4003 posts)
  1. jackclee lm profile image78
    jackclee lmposted 9 years ago

    The 2nd Amendment is there to preserve our liberty from a tyranical government. The same people who tells us it is too hard to deport 12 million illegal immigrants are the ones telling us to remove the 100 plus million legal guns in our homes. Does that make any sense? I predict the next wave of mass killings will be from commercial drones. Why are big business and our govenment making this easier for terrorists? Our privacy and our well being is being eroded and our officials are politicizing a mass shooting instead of dealing with the causes. It is mental illness and radical Islamic groups who are causing the majority of the mass killings. Do we really need a package from Amazon delivered to our door on the same day? Are you willing to give up our security for a little convenience?

    1. peoplepower73 profile image82
      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I haven't heard anybody in this forum say to remove 100 plus million legal guns from homes.  You may be right about the drones, because that is just a weakness of the 2nd amendment being from another time. Armed commercial drones are just another form of bearing arms. Where do you draw the line? 

      The 2nd amendment allows everybody to  have access to guns including the mentally ill and the people who would mount them on drones.  The only freedoms we have given up are from the terrorists.  It's called a force multiplier.  They don't even have to be successful and yet they get us to change our laws, because they have frightened millions of people with one person. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were not even successful.

      Every time you go through TSA you have to take off your shoes, belts, empty your pockets.  You can't bring liquid on board for anything over 2 ounces.  You and your luggage are X rayed, Why because attempts have been made by terrorists groups.  How has the 2nd amendment helped you there? But you have given up those freedoms.

      In movie theaters, they now search women's purses why, because a mentally ill shooter did a mass killing in a theater. Did the 2nd amendment help there? The 2nd amendment causes you to focus on tyranny, so you look for things that support that tyranny to justify the 2nd amendment.  It's a closed loop.  When the real problem is we need policies and procedures for better gun control.  The reason we don't have it is because the NRA and gun lobbyist are one of the big business that you mentioned that are causing us not to have better gun control. As you say, it's big business eroding our freedoms.

      1. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        The only way gun control can achieve the results you want is to remove all guns (legal and illegal), any other form of gun control will only help the criminals who will not abide by any law anyway.
        My point on the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun violence per se. It is an insurance policy against a tyrannical government (please read the history of the founding fathers). I am not against limited gun control legislation to keep it away from the mentally ill. That is just common sense. Gun ownership is a privilege just like you need a driver license to drive a car. I am not a fan of the TSA and it's attempt to stop terrorism.  I believe smart profiling is the way to go like they have in Israel with regard to air travel. Recent study have show 90% of TSA security measures at airport does not work.

    2. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
      wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12693573.jpg

      It is interesting to see all of the chickens coming home to roost. The progeny of the Americans who  participated in the murder, theft, and slavery that paved the way for millions of illegal European immigrants to pursue the "American Dream", now begins to self destruct from within, while they circle the wagons, and speak of protecting themselves from the most powerful army in the world with the use of personal firearms. It is like a pathetic scene from a Shakespearean Tragedy. The Second Amendment is a placebo that cannot protect the American people from the Karma already set into motion, nor a tyrannical U.S. government.

  2. Alternative Prime profile image59
    Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

    The 2cnd Amendment Grants Explicit, Specific Authority to individuals who are affiliated with the Military and is a BAN on Guns for all others ~

    Un-Documented Immigrants have, and will continue to Enhance the United States as Productive Citizens of our Diverse Society, while republicans do great Harm and attempt to Degrade our very Societal Fabric every single chance they get ~ Therefore, I would augment your plan and DEPORT 12 MILLION republicans instead ~ We need a ONE Party System, a Progressive Democratic System which works tirelessly for "We the People" as they currently do, we don't need a republican party to  continue Plundering this Country in the Name of "We the Greedy Corporations" ~

    ANOTHER Fictitious Republican "PRETEND Land" War? MORE Psuedo-Scenarios? Who will be operating these Drones and who or what will be the Target(s)?

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You have a poor understanding of our Constitution. We have a legal immigration system as stipulated in the Constitution. It is not my plan to deport illegal immigrants but it is the current law that officials chose not to enforce. There is no Constitutional ground to deport Republicans or any other legal residents. Your one party system is what they have in Communist countries and totalitarian States. For the record, I am a Constitutionalist and a Conservative. I disagree with some of the policies of current parties both Democrat and Republican. They are controlled by the same group. The reason we are in such dire straights are due to incompetence on all level of government. The drone policy is just another disaster waiting to happen.

  3. Alternative Prime profile image59
    Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

    The reason why this Amendment does NOT afford protection from an EVIL TYRANNICAL Federal Government is because it was never designed for such an ILLUSORY Purpose ~ It was Explicitly Designed for Exactly what it articulates, and that is, The United States Military as Protection against external threats ~

    George Washington via the Amendment never gave permission to a bunch of Quasi-Lucid, Home Schooled, Lawless Individuals, to DECLARE Tyranny whenever their little hearts felt a bit uneasy, amass bushels of Arms, and then go hunting for Federal Employees including HIMSELF~ The Amendment dosen't say that today, and it didn't say that once the pigeon ink dried centuries ago ~

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It is your lack of understanding of the Constitution that  worry me about what the public education is teaching in our schools. As a first generation immigrant to Amereica,how is it that I have a better unsestanding of US history and the Constitution than most people born here.  Your rants are telling. Tyranny is not declared by anybody. It is actions from a government thru laws and force upon the people. please read the Bill of Rights and tell me what it means to you. I am curious.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image59
        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Well, it's quite obvious where your "Superior Understanding" & "Command of the English" language permeates from ----> smile

        I can show you exactly where the Amendment Grants a "Well Regulated Miiltia" , and ONLY a Well Regulated Militia the Explicit Authority  to Bear ARMS ~ Where within the same document does it say you as an individual, can bear arms and use them against the United States of America if you feel Tyranny is in the Air? ~

        "Tyranny" is an easy word to spell, a word which could have been easily INSERTED within the Amendment if this was the INTENT of our founders ~ But it wasn't and it's NOT ~

        1. jackclee lm profile image78
          jackclee lmposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I wrote a hub on American Civics 101 for those people who  lack the basic understanding of our Constitution. It is on my home page. I hope to educate and not get caught up in useless debate. Don't let the elites pit you against the opposition. That is what the people in control of  Washington wants. They use all the wedge issues to divide us. The war on women and all the other fake arguments are just that, distractions. Our country are in trouble financially and everything else will not matter if we are broke and can't even help ourselves let alone other nations around the world.

    2. profile image0
      SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And we actually see the crux of the matter.  Did you know that children who are home-schooled score higher, on average, than those who are taught in public schools, on Sat and ACT tests? https://www.home-school.com/news/homesc … school.php

      Your hate is showing.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image59
        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        If you think a Superior Education can be derived from "Home Schooling" you really should Home School your Children SirDent ~

        Maybe that's where they pick-up this ridiculous "Tyrannical Government"  is coming to get you Nonsense because this type of distorted thought is certainly NOT pervasive in the Big City where Normal Humans actually interact with many others of the same Species ~

        When innocent children are locked up somewhere in a home made log cabin with no neighbors, no contact with the outside world, no indoor plumbing,  no entertainment, no modern conveniences, no telecommunication, no electronics, I guess it's pretty easy to Conjure Fairytales about Bigfoots, Chupacabras, Hillbilly Beasts, and EVIL Federal Governments ~

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          And Common Core is a great world-wide educational system too. The world is in a wonderful state. No need for improvement, concern or protection. The Globalists are not set out to implement Agenda 21 and borders will not become obsolete in their plan to rule the world.

          Thank Goodness!
          Now we can all go back to contemplating our navels. cool
          (Not to mention our bare arms.)

        2. profile image0
          SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          And your credibility just took a major hit.  Name calling?  Really?

    3. profile image0
      Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It certainly was designed in part for that.  The times in which they lived AND their observations about human nature were enough to tell the founders that the citizens HAD to have the means to stop an overreaching government both then and going forward.  Your unhistorical insistence that the 2nd Amendment was intended only for a government
      controlled/trained military denies the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment....if the government has all the weapons, it can readily grab all the power, and the government didn't NEED an amendment to allow it to posses weapons.  And just because the word TYRANNY -such an easy word to spell-isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't speak to the issue.  The founders gave commentary over the years after the founding that CLEARLY indicated their desire for Americans to be able to protect themselves from TYRANNY (such an easy word to spell).

      Your reasoning on this is flawed, and seems to be based in part on the supposition that humans are by nature good.  Show me that in history Buck.  Thousands of years of humans with a nature that is basically good??  Even our founders, who believed we had the right to govern ourselves didn't endorse such an idea.  Your flawed reasoning on the 2nd amendment seems to be based also upon the idea that TYRANNY-such an easy word to spell-simply can't happen here.  Really?  Tell that to the leaders of the confederate movement to succeed from the US....they believed the federal government was....here it is AGAIN: TYRANNICAL.

      If you would look at how the Constitution has been breaking down over the decades, and no, I'm not doing the work for YOU, you would grasp at least that there's a possibility we're heading towards a TYRANNICAL (I love this word, each form so easy to spell) form of government, regardless of which party is in power.  If you don't see that, that's OK; your reasoning on this is still flawed.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image59
        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        If that's your belief, show me exactly where the 2cnd Amendment expresses your right to "Bear Arms" Against my Federal Government ~  Furthermore, who is authorized to declare this "State of Tyranny"? Can Grandma in St. Louis at 97 years old declare war on my Government because she's stuck in her ways and says Gays Can't Get Married?

        Republican Mike HuckleberryBee already DECLARED a State of Tyranny a few weeks ago, so what's up with that and where's his little pea shooter?

        Where within this passage does it give you or Grandma that right?

        1. profile image0
          Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Look at my post....the founders didn't put it in "this passage", but their comments in years after the founding affirmed the fact that they believed Americans needed to be able to defend themselves against that easy word to spell - and no, I'm not doing your research for you there either.

          You do ask a difficult question though: Who is authorized to declare this "State of Tyranny".  Maybe that's why they didn't include it in "this passage" - they weren't declaring that any individual had the "right" to declare this "State of Tyranny", but that armed Americans would have a chance, never the less, to defend themselves against such a State.  Americans without arms, they believed, could readily become subject to a "State of Tyranny".

          1. Alternative Prime profile image59
            Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Hxprof ~

            This ill-conceived, REPUBLICAN "Fantasy-Land" notion that my Government, an entity which provides Essential Services to my country and employs Millions of good Americans who are indeed much more patriotic than any republican on this planet, is somehow someday going to wreak-havoc on me and my neighbors is ABSURD plain and simple ~

            However, this insane concept is Profound to many out of touch Conservatives living primarily in remote, ultra-rural & wilderness areas and even ALL consuming for genuine Helmet-Heads like Sean Hammerhead, Bill O'reilly, Dr. Wacko Ben Carson etc etc ~ These characters seem to have a perverted Pre-Occupation with this ridiculous thought ~ So, if "Tyranny"  were such a Profoundly Important Subject WAY back in our Pre-Laws & Ordinances Day, it would have surely been expressed verbatim in the 2cnd Amendment but it's simply NOT there, which means the inclusion of such ridiculousness was not our quasi-sober forefather's intent, while ARMS for Military Use ONLY was clearly expressed ~

            1. joeyallen profile image77
              joeyallenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Well put Alt. Prime! I'm now following you.

    4. TheHealthGuy LM profile image78
      TheHealthGuy LMposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      obviously you can't read or understand what you read. the well chosen 27 words in the 2nd amendment exclusively dictates, as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:

      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      The militia is "we the people" NOT the military or police forces which are gov't controlled. The last 14 words " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would NOT have been necessary nor even made sense if it were not so.

      I would suggest you go back to school and study English , including proper sentence structure.

  4. Alternative Prime profile image59
    Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

    I would assume, within your Hub, you explain exactly where the "INVISIBLE" word Tyranny appears in the 2cnd Amendment ~

    Right now, as we speak, Backward Republicans are threatening "Planned Parenthood", an essential Woman's Health Care Provider, Republicans are Threatening to Terminate Social Security & Medicare which provide essential Income & Medical Care for our Senior Citizens, this is a pet project for your beloved Paul Ryan, Republicans OBSTRUCT any and all legislation to provide an Increase in Minimum Wage for our Working, or "Enslaved" Class, Dr. Weirdo Carson is threatening to Terminate our Veteran's Administration etc etc ~ These are REAL Assaults on our Society happening TODAY ~

    Before you so generously "EDUCATE" us all about the Distant Past, and what you THINK our forefathers had in mind, I would suggest a Deeper Understanding of the "Here and Now" ~

  5. Doug Cutler profile image65
    Doug Cutlerposted 9 years ago

    The 2nd was to prevent the gov. from becoming too restrictive. Also, later to give the newly freed blacks a means to protect themselves from tyrannical rule by some white groups.
    Other reasons for the 2nd is: home/personal defense, hunting, collectors, recreational shooters, defense of country, defense of others etc.

    1. Alternative Prime profile image59
      Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe in "Republican Pretend Land" this is true, but in the REAL Tangible World it's Nonsense ~ It's expected by now, Republicans just like to "Make Things UP" out of THIN Air and simply Pretend it's true or factual ~

      Everyone needs to read the Amendment for themselves ~ Military Personnel have the Right to Bear Arms PERIOD ~ Not word One about "Tyranny" or any other MYTHICAL Scenario ~

      1. Doug Cutler profile image65
        Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        The blacks weren't given guns when they left the army?? And they weren't allowed to own guns after the Civil war?? A large part of the population didn't hunt?? And I guess you believe that all the gun violence is by Republicans only?? You are the one that's on fairy dust.  I already stated in a prior post that the well maintained militia was IN ADDITION TOO the already accepted gun uses. Most other countries didn't allowed militias. So, we were given special permission to do so by our leaders, in addition too.
        And why your big anti-Republican rant? Both parties are trying to take our gun and rights away!
        The 2nd was written long before parties were in use. In fact the early leaders warned against having multiple parties. The best person for the job should be voted in reguardless of party.

      2. wilderness profile image89
        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        "the right of the people to..."

        I'd have to say that the MYTH is that the people (that can own weapons) must also be military.  After 50 or so iterations of that MYTH, it remains just a MYTH - perhaps you should stop trying to make a MYTH sound like fact.  Nobody is swallowing it.

        1. Alternative Prime profile image59
          Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Once again wilderness, you might be correct in your own private remote "Republican Pretend Land" but not in the REAL World ~

          There are 21 more inconvenient WORDS within this passage and as expected, you and the typical rural republican continue to PRETEND they do NOT exist ~ Sorry, but to my knowledge they have yet to be Omitted, Erased, nor Exiled from the Amendment ~ They are indeed Pesky, but when added to your 6 words, the FULL Context is revealed ~

  6. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    To clear up MY interpretation of todays America ,  I do believe the second Amendment is clearly  a right  "of the people "   not of the government .
    I do not believe there is tyranny in America  today although we ARE closing in on it rather quickly .
    No one will have to declare  government Tyranny - believe me , when it hits the fan everyone's  going to know it and will have already picked sides .
    I do not believe a gun owner or potential  owner should have to "prove himself " , that's as  unconstitutional as hanging  a suspect of a crime before a trial , Constitutional rights are for everyone , Yes , even the gun owner .     

    If the system in place now cannot vet  whether a criminal has purchased a gun  ;used one in a crime or keep him from them ----prosecute  and punish him ,      Or cannot keep a mentally incompetent away from crime  -----the system is broken  - Not the constitutional right !     How easy it is for the reverse peristalsis   of liberal idealist's  to  throw all of  the constitution out  with  the bath water though !

    1. Alternative Prime profile image59
      Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      ahorseback ~

      LOL ~ While you and your republican buddies like Paul Ryan, Dr. Wacko Ben Carson, Sean Hammerhead, Jed Bush etc continue to waste precious time living in the 1770's, waiting anxiously for the angry, SWORD Weilding Tyrannical "GHOST of George Washington to Arrive" on your freshly whittled, home made maple wood rural door step, Progressive Democrats have MOVED on into the Future , Leaving you and your ridiculous paranoid notions in the Proverbial DUST ~

      Still patiently waiting for any regressive republican to miraculously conjure the word "Tyranny" to appear in the 2cnd Amendment ~ The FACT remains, the 2cnd Amendment is a BAN on Arms unless you are in the Military ~

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I have generally decided that your posts are so liberally slanted  and shallow that I'll not respond to them , thank you .

  7. mybrianthe fixer profile image60
    mybrianthe fixerposted 9 years ago

    Whoa Americans with guns are you all mad. Constition. Wake up in the his story(history) of the world not one gun Rifel bomb nuke has killed anyone without a human pulling the trigger. End

  8. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    Peoplepower ,  "Nope its only for gun owners "..............right , lets make gun owners ONLY  prove to the world that they are somehow held  accountable  ABOVE and beyond  everyone else too right ,

    That attitude alone my friend  absolutely proves the entire naiveté  of anti- gun people .'  that somehow you can demand that the constitutional protections of law  apply to some Americans , but not others . As far as I'm concerned  that absolutely proves how in denial  some are about law , about politics and about our constitutional blindness .

    I believe  earlier in a  thread ,you said you had served in the military ,  I'm sure  I believe as well that you took an oath of service ,  I think you should google that wording up , freshen up on the words and the meaning of that and other oaths  one takes in protecting the very constitutional of the united States . but hey ,  That speaks  volumes about liberals   true agenda.

  9. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    I AM THE EVIL AMERICAN  GUN OWNER  THAT YOU ALL FEAR !


    I thought this might help clear up some of the obvious misconception .........No,  Naiveté  about the Other 99.99999999 percent of people who own guns in America .    Now I know most people ,   especially politically Liberal- Anti-gun , Anti-second amendment , Anti- anything traditionally American , are already going to regurgitate anything resembling common sense about gun ownership    THAT IS their agenda ,after all  , first their gong to say "there is no such thing anymore as  common sense ...." yet there is . It's just that THEY don't have it .

    I own and use  approximately thirty  different  guns ,   both handgun and long gun  ,  mostly  antique style  , in fact single shot ,which is something I enjoy ,  primitive weapons .All of them registered  by background check as required by law ,  I like the historical, the traditional  even the romance about the historical  part of ownership , much like some people draw their hand across  a nice antique  side board or china cabinet  made out of American walnut and brass  hardware , I also  like taking care of my collection .,   each and every weapon that I own  and that anyone that I know owns  has been safely  proven  through a complete  ATF or FBI  background check .  Sometimes taking days for actual approval !

    These apply to the same 99.9999999999999 % of gun owners

    *Every gun I own is legally registered with the FBI .
    *None of my guns then have been used in a crime .
    * I have never committed a crime
    * I  am not a drug addict
    * I don't fantasize about mass murdering people
    *I have never pointed at or threatened another person with a gun .
    *All of my arms and ammunition are  locked up in a steel safe .
    *The only one that uses them are me alone .
    *Only I know how to unlock them .
    *No children ever handle my guns

    How anyone expects  more laws than the thousands already in affect , to change the mind of the criminally insane  AND make the crimes they commit .....go away ! Is beyond me !    After all  THAT has worked SO well with legal or illegal drug addictions ,hasn't it ?   

    I would bet that there ARE thousands  , if not tens of thousands  of drug laws right now all  across America -  And still  , around every corner , in EVERY OTHER  house in America  , someone is using drugs illegally . drug  laws work really well don't they ?

    WHAT IS THE MESSEGE IN THAT ? ,   That more law  always works ?  That more  legislation always reduces crime ?  That a piece of paper alters and somehow  improves human nature ?    That you can control human impulse by somehow  legislating the same ?  That Insanity can be altered , cured  and controlled by legislation  or that the criminal mind has been  or can be altered by more law ?

    Talk about insanity !

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      OK, so you are a responsible gun owner, that is the way 100% of gun owners OUGHT to be.  You passed a background check, which is one of the things us Pro-regulation types think ought to be universal have been fighting for, most recently since Sandy Hook advocate, but the NRA leadership has so far been able to stop from happening (why is that, by the way?)

      Why are you opposed to Arizona, which has a very high death rate from guns, to having the same gun laws as Massachusetts which has a much lower rate of death from guns?  What is wrong with having a lower death rate from guns when it is clearly possible to achieve without banning guns in their entirety?

      1. Doug Cutler profile image65
        Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        How many of those deaths are from illegals? How many are those that got themselves killed in that count that were committing a crime? Raw numbers don't mean much to me. Like those who claim the U.S. has to be the most corrupt place on earth because we have the highest percent in jails. Go live in some of those countries that have mostly political prisoners in jails! While the real crooks are out shooting people.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image82
      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      ahorseback:   Bravo for you.  But it's not about you. It's about the people who posses guns illegally.  It's about the guns that are bought and traded in the parking lots of gun shows.  It's about the guns that are bought by a straw man and given to someone else.  It's about the guns that are bought on the internet with no record.  It's about the background checks that default after three days of no response. It's about the NRA lobbying for less gun control, but more guns.  It's about the inane idea of tyranny which is propaganda by the NRA and the right wing propaganda machine to sell more guns. It's about how new laws cannot get passed because the gun manufactures fund the NRA which in turns funds congress for their campaigns. It's about congress turning a blind eye because they don't want to jeopardize their flow of money to their campaigns. 

      If I called my congressman and I told him or her that I  was going to donate a $100.00 to their campaign for gun control laws. And at the same time an NRA lobbyist was on hold because they wanted to donate $10,000.00 to the same campaign, who do you think would get the call?

      It's not about altering the criminal' mind or the mentally ills mind with more laws, It's about having laws that can maintain a real database for the accountability of all gun transactions. It's not about taking away everybody's guns to implement such laws.

      I presume you own a car, right?  When you got your first license you went to the DMV, you had to pass both a written test and a drivers test. When you bought your first car, it was either from a dealer or an owner.  The transaction was recorded and entered into the DMV database.  When you sold your first car,  the transaction was recorded and entered into a database.  When you insured your car, the transaction was entered into a database. When your driver's license was about to expire, you had to pass a written test again. If your license did expire, you had to take both a written test and the driver's test.  That information was entered into a database.

      If you were to commit a crime with your car, all of that information is available to law enforcement.  It provides accountability for not only you, but all car owners.  You see, the 2nd amendment doesn't provide for any of that.  It says everybody can posses a gun without any accountability for good guys, bad guys, criminals, and the mentally ill.  You want the criminal justice system to be improved, but I don't hear any ideas from you as to how to do that.  I think it's because you want to make it somebody else s responsibility, when in fact, it's all of our responsibilities.

      But as they say, follow the money.  It goes from gun manufactures to the NRA, to their lobbyist and then to congress.

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        You have so much more patience than I do.  I gave up on this issue.  Hats off to you.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image82
          peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

          PrettyPanther:  Thank you.  I hate to say it, but I think I'm becoming addicted to this forum.  At least that's what my wife says.  I appreciate ahosrosebacks' replies because it gives me a chance to articulate my thoughts about the 2nd amendment and what it is lacking.

          It is a crying shame, most of these gun people have been brainwashed by the NRA and the right wing propaganda machine.  They exploit the conservative's mindset of protecting their domain and their fear of losing their rights. However, we have the right to bring about change, if things are not working the way they should be.  I love the conservative logic of:  If a is controlled, then b through z must be controlled as well; or it's just a slippery slope to go from a to z; or what if a, than b through z.

          1. wilderness profile image89
            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            It does give you a chance to articulate your thoughts, but it also gives you a chance to hear, and investigate, other's thoughts.  Although you don't seem to do so much.

            Yes, you have the right to bring about change if things are not working the way they should be.  Change that has a reasonable expectation of producing desired results.  Unfortunately, gun controls have never done that, so why continue to do the same thing while expecting different results?  Are we incapable of learning?  Isn't it plain yet that gun controls do not halt or even slow down the carnage?  We've taken that road for decades now, and other countries have gone even further, all with zero return for their efforts - isn't it time to look elsewhere for an answer?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
              Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              The answer is in the improvement of human nature, well, maybe as our mental and physical health improves.



              It starts with the proper care and understanding of ourselves, our children and good nutrition!  like we had in the fifties and sixties. Less processed foods on the market and better dietary habits. Also no drugs Ritalin/Adderal etc. given to children.


              Evolution has never depended on drugs.

              We have so many challenges in the environment now.
              Violent video games, TV shows/movies, bad news all the time/media, negativity in general, easily viewed sex everywhere … the dangers of the Internet.

              If you ask me ...
              which no one did.

      2. wilderness profile image89
        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Do you get a psych evaluation every time you renew your car tags or driver's license?  Was there a background check (taking an unlimited amount of time) when you got a DL to make sure you weren't a danger to others? 

        Drivers education is a joke in this country; check the requirements (and cost) for a DL in Germany.  And as a result, Germany has one of the lowest accident records in the world in spite of the Autobahn with it's unlimited speed limit.  As we lose nearly 100 people per day to auto accidents (and a much higher number of injuries) shouldn't we go the German route and require much, much tougher DL requirements?  I mean, if you want to compare requirements for driving (pretty much a failure as far as controlling deaths) as applicable to gun permits, shouldn't we be putting our efforts where it will matter, and reduce the number of car deaths?

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          A great post.  I would like to add also, drivers do not have to get drug tested.  Only commercial drivers and probably not all of them, depending on the company.

        2. peoplepower73 profile image82
          peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

          wilderness:  Sure that's a great idea to reduce deaths caused from cars.  Why don't you propose it.  But I will bet you all of those accidents can be traced to the person owning that car.  You see you are giving a false equivalence.  You are talking about deaths from car accidents and I'm talking about laws that provide accountability of possession of guns to prevent deaths. 

          i'm going to say it one more time.  The 2nd amendment says everyone has the right to bear arms.  That means everybody, criminals, mentally ill, even your grandmother has the same right.  It is not a law in that it does not prohibit the populace from that right. But it does prohibit infringing on that right. We need laws to provide accountability of those rights.  The 2nd amendment does not do that.

          1. wilderness profile image89
            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            It sounds like you're saying we need more gun laws for law enforcement purposes.  To aid the police in tracking criminals that have used a gun.

            But it's a reason that is insufficient for the contemplated action.  The primary purpose of tracking guns is, and shall always be, for use by government in eventually confiscating them.  While I realize that the rallying cry from the anti-gun crowd is to negate that statement but there are enough honest people out there that will absolutely agree the ultimate aim is to get guns out of the hands of the populace to make it a lie.  Even some of our esteemed leaders make that plain.

            And the cops don't need any more weapons in their arsenal of crime tracking tools.  It's already to the point that virtually anything a cop wants to do he can, and there just isn't much reason to increase that.  Certainly weakening the 2nd amendment by making it difficult to impossible to buy/own a gun isn't one of them.

            You want a reasonable gun control?  Technology has already made it possible to build guns that will only fire in the owners hand.  Improve that to near perfection and make it cheap (or free, supplied by the government that thinks gun control is helpful) and you've done something reasonable.  Trade (even swap) for current guns, paid for by government, and most gun owners would be happy to.  More, expensive and time consuming, regulations aren't reasonable - we already have plenty of those and it hasn't accomplished a thing; there is no reason to think that more will do anything either.

            1. My Esoteric profile image83
              My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              When in the history of the United States has this "The primary purpose of tracking guns is, and shall always be, for use by government in eventually confiscating them." ever been true, or even close to being so.

            2. My Esoteric profile image83
              My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              And sane regulations that characterize Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Hawaii laws where the death rate by gun is an order of magnitude lower than it is in Arizona or Louisiana which have hardly any laws regarding guns.

        3. peoplepower73 profile image82
          peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Wilderness: This is conservative logic  "It doesn't work in other countries, why would it work here?  You are wasting your time, so why expect doing the same thing and expecting different results."

          I find it interesting though that your conservative fellows spend millions of tax payer dollars trying to stop Obama care over 50 times and they have spent millions in the Benghazi investigations. The purpose of which was to lower Hillary's poll numbers.   They say, one form of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well with gun control, they won't even let us get started to see if it works or not.  It is a forgone conclusion that it won't.

          I'm not suggesting weakening the 2nd amendment, it is already weak, in terms of providing accountability for possession of firearms.

          Your assertion that it didn't work in other countries is false, It's working in the U.K.  I posted this once before, but I think it was ignored for the most part.  So I will post it again. It's called the Guide on Firearm Licensing Law.  You will see in order to make this law work, it required concerted cooperation from the government, gun buyers and sellers, local law enforcement, and doctors.

          This is straight from the introduction of the document: "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."  The link is at the end of this post..


          We need laws.  Acts and Bills are written everyday.  There was a ban on assault weapons that started in 1994 and it expired ten years later.  Why, because the NRA and gun manufactures couldn't sell assault weapons during that period.  Therefore, they lost money.  They were  smart enough to put in a sunset provision so that it would automatically expire after 10 years...very cagey indeed.

          Here is the U.K. Guide:   

          https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s … aw_v13.pdf

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            They failed because they were determined to be anti- constitutional by the supreme court  .

  10. Doug Cutler profile image65
    Doug Cutlerposted 9 years ago

    The Israel gov. is asking all registered gun owners to carry to protect the populace because of the rash of stabbings by Muslim whacko types.

    "So called “lone wolf attacks” have become so frequent that Jerusalem major Nir Barkat has urged all adults who own a licensed gun to carry a weapon with them throughout their daily activities, noting that quite often terrorists are stopped or killed by civilians or former IDF soldiers when police are not available'

    How many are killed justifiably that are added to a countries homicide rate and makes a country look bad?

  11. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    Speaking of myths. I have just had an epiphany. To date, I see there are 988 comments on this thread. I haven't followed every comment, but I have kept a close eye on it. It appears that no one has decried the problem of "white on white" violence. It seems odd since historically, most mass shooters have been white men killing other white people. Sometimes white female shooters too, as in the infamous "I Don't Like Mondays" massacre. However, in this same forum people have been very quick to cite "black on black" violence whenever a miscreant cop starts killing black people. The double standard is painfully obvious. Just sayin'.

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You don't say?

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
        wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, I do say. It is a fact that a majority of mass shootings are committed by white males. This is old news. But now I will deliver the bombshell: White on White violence is even greater than many have been led to believe, because the gun manufacturers, retail outlets,and gun shops are predominantly white owned and operated. And of course, these are the people who are yelling the loudest about their precious second amendment rights! These people are not indirectly responsible for every mass shooting that involves an assault weapon. They are "directly" responsible for these mass murders!

        The citizen does not need an assault weapon, or even an automatic weapon to protect their home. There are many ways to do this. A vicious dog or even two, electrical current, locks on your doors, a security system. or Jesus. I am sure there are many more ways as well. As far as protecting ourselves in public. places: Isn't that what the cops are getting paid to carry guns for? It seems they are too busy eating donuts, writing your grandmother a ticket to meet their quota, or shooting unarmed black kids  to protect the public from white males gone wild. White on white violence is out of control. On one hand we have deranged young white males killing white people at random, seemingly just for "kicks". On the other hand we have white men and women profiting from all of this misery. Not to mention the news organizations who profit with every mass shooting that boosts their ratings. I do say, and I have said.

        1. wilderness profile image89
          wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Interesting list of protection "devices"

          A couple of vicious dogs to chew up the neighborhood children, along with your own.
          An electric current that will very quickly put you in jail.
          Locks on the doors to keep windows from being broken.
          A security system that few can afford.
          And Jesus, as if Christians don't have break-ins. 

          Great list!  Can we add an apple a day, a Buddha in the living room and a scarecrow in the yard?

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
            wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12696745.jpg

            Of course, why use positive energy, prayer, or any alternative means of protection that might take a little effort, when we can simply buy a gun and blow someones head off. Besides, it is the manly thing to do; isn't it? I am forever reminded why the series "All In The Family" was such a big hit. A great majority of Americans still subscribe to what I have labeled: Archie Logic & Edith Acquiescence.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
              Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Do you know how to emanate the kind of love it would take to ward off really bad guys?
              Until we all have that kind of love in our hearts …
              of course we can practice, but mean while
                polish up a sword! smile

            2. wilderness profile image89
              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Probably because neither "positive energy" nor prayer has any affect.  Your vicious dogs will, but are also more danger to the owner and family than a gun carrying murderer.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
                wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12696827.jpg
                Both prayer and positive energy have a basis in human science. But the science is not advanced enough to explain this phenomena. Science could not explain,nor was even aware of  cell phone technology 500 years ago. Nevertheless, anyone who might have possessed such technology in the 15th century could have still used cell phones, just as we do today.  I have witnessed many miracles in my lifetime that were a direct result of prayer, and positive energy. You obviously know nothing of either. My belief is not based on faith, but on my own experience. Perhaps you feel cheated. In that case, you should talk to God.

                1. wilderness profile image89
                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  True, that science can't explain it.  Because it can't even find results!

                  If you think you've witness miracles (impossible events) that were a result of prayer, I'd have to say that you have no idea what investigation of phenomena means, or even evidence.  (Hint: it doesn't mean that if you can't explain something without trying it must be a "miracle").

                  1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    Once again you have painted yourself into a corner. Anyone who follows this thread will see that my understanding of your lack of knowledge concerning  prayer, or positive energy, is not based on my own assumptions, but upon your own admission! You clearly stated the following:

                    "Probably because neither "positive energy" nor prayer has any affect."

                    This statement indicates that you do not believe in the power of prayer or positive energy. Especially when we consider your other comments. I expressed the following in response:

                    "You obviously know nothing of either."

                    This is not an assumption since it is based on your previous statement. Your next statement reveals a great contradiction that you will be unable to refute, or explain. You stated:

                    "If you think you've witness miracles (impossible events) that were a result of prayer, I'd have to say that you have no idea what investigation of phenomena means, or even evidence."

                    The contradiction should be obvious, but I will explain. On one hand you dismiss the notion of prayer,positive energy, and miracles as nonsense, although quantum physics acknowledges such phenomena in a scientific context. But then you contradict yourself by claiming to have the ability to look into my life and decide that I don't know what I am talking about, and that I am too ignorant to understand how to conduct a scientific investigation, or even have the common sense to separate fact from fiction.

                    I have made no determination about you, other than what you yourself have revealed. However, you would necessarily have to possess the mystical powers that you so vehemently deny in order to know so much about my alleged shortcomings. Especially since we have never met! I dare say that you yourself are claiming nothing short of a miracle: to look into a man's heart, mind, and past, a man you know nothing about, and then tell him what he doesn't know!

                    It will be better for you not to respond at all, since you have said too much already.

    2. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Take a look at the highest crime  stat cities in America  with minority populations lately ?

  12. bluesradio profile image57
    bluesradioposted 9 years ago

    And who basically is in charge of the majority news media?....Why are we surprised that a crime that happens in the suburbs does not get as much coverage as a crime from the "hood."

  13. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    What a thread of naiveté'-  We blame gun manufactures  for producing black plastic  handles on a gun instantly making that same gun an assault weapon .   We blame original framers of the most effective constitution anywhere in the world ,    we blame the evil republicans  , the crooked politicians  of the right , we blame the  hunter ,soldiers , the defender of  our nation  .   We throw blame around like its the way to cure anything and yet :

    Not one single word about  personal accountability ? Not one . And THAT, in itself should be  the most important part of this discussion  !

    But then that is exactly the point from the left ,  That no longer are  we , any of us , to be held responsible for a crime .    Bottom line .

    1. Doug Cutler profile image65
      Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I did!  Way earlier in this thread. Others have mentioned it some, but not recently. Drug up kids in school instead of making them behave. Of coarse if you try to discipline you get sued or fired or jailed. Over pampered kids turn into problem adults.
      Police are afraid to ticket the worst and pick on easy hits to get their ticket quotas.
      Parents say my Johnny or Suesy  "would never". I even heard one mom say "The devil made him do it" instead of making her kid mind.
      Most of the problem is up bringing and self control. The crap in our food, water and air is no help either.
      I refused to watch my sister's 7 year old again after he told me he didn't have to mind because I wasn't his mom or dad.
      Some coming out of the military are on dangerous drugs issued to them by the gov. They go off and kill.
      We are turning out a lot of crazies via drugs and lack of discipline. Jails are like resorts were inmates learn how to be better crooks when they get out.
      We need more groups like those in Chicago that get people together to discuss their differences instead of resorting to guns.

      1. rhamson profile image69
        rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        The funny thing is that back in the eighties we began over emphasizing how much we should praise our children so their self esteem would not suffer and have them turn to drugs. When that didn't work we gave them the "right" drugs because they needed to be medicated from their natural behavior. Now we have decriminalized some so they can medicate themselves and hopefully stay out of jail and a record that would affect them the rest of their lives.

        Excuses! They are all excuses. While some are regrettably mentally ill, most that act out are just spoiled and misbehaved brats.

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          This is Well Said !

  14. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    Woop woop woop woop, Can anyone hear the helicopter parenting of  liberal social  services running to the rescue , here ,    Not once  in this entire thread have we discussed the real issue  .    Personal accountability !     
    The left , by intellectual design has  shown  in agenda  here and in any forum having  anything to do with human nature  , feels that there is absolutely no need for  the personal accountability or  responsibility  in   ANY crimes or actions  against their fellow man , woman or child .

    "You committed  a crime , here's your trophy , it's not your fault , it's the fault of the constitution , you didn't do anything wrong , you were simply born in America ."

    "Oh , you're on medication for  something , well , how can we blame you for taking another life , Its not your fault , this IS after all America "

    Where is one answer , thread or  response from the left that focuses  on the REAL reason behind all crime  , gun related or not ?

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Since over 50% of Americans are living near or below adequate standard of living levels, your statement implies that less than 1/2 the nation is "accountable".   Not being "accountable", your raison d'etre for all economic ills in American society, actually applies to less than 1% of society.  Only a small percentage of crime is committed out of true need by otherwise good people; the rest is by people who are simply too lazy to work a real job(s) or, in most cases, simply bad people.  They generally ARE NOT people struggling to live in a society where 20% of that same society (and currently control Congress) could care less about them or their problems..

    2. rhamson profile image69
      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that personal accountability is of primary concern when deciding to commit a crime with a gun or not. But what of those who hear voices and act on them to kill others? Is the law that protects their privacy used against us when determining their eligibility to possess a firearm? Is that privacy to be invaded only upon the issuing of a gun license? Who is to be trusted to hold and handle this information? Just as firearms owners do not trust the government when it comes to gun laws so it goes with the general public who distrusts that same government access to and sharing their personal health and life information. Is this a Catch 22 or just a Mexican stand off? Who is going to blink?

  15. Ameraka profile image71
    Amerakaposted 9 years ago

    We should restrict guns from people who are mentally ill and have a criminal history (and of course keep them away from children). But just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're a criminal. Some people have guns to protect themselves from criminals. Someone who doesn't regard the law is going to get a gun whether it's legal or not. And the law-abiding citizens won't be protected. The police won't always be there. Most of the time, they only act when someone is directly threatened, or when it's too late and the person is already hurt or killed. We need to be able to protect ourselves from the crazy people and criminals. We law-abiding citizens are the ones who will use guns responsibly.
    As a woman, I often think about getting a gun, because it would be an equalizer between me and a man who's at least 30 pounds heavier than me. I have to think about this because my sister got mixed up with this boy who ended up getting her pregnant, and after they were married he started beating her. This was when she had a newborn baby in the house. She divorced him, but he still stalked her, thinking she's his property. He takes drugs, sells heroin, is in and out of jail. With someone like this, you don't want to take any chances, especially when there's a little girl involved. You want to be able to protect yourself BEFORE the fact. There's no guarantee the police will get there in time, even if you have time to call 911.

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
      wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12698310.jpg

      In the ideal situation a gun may help your sister, but except for in the movies, these ideal moments rarely occur. She would literally have to carry the gun upon her person at all times, since she could not possibly know when and where a confrontation may occur. Furthermore. if he also has a weapon, since he is the aggressor, there is a greater likelihood that he will kill your sister before she has time to react.

      A much more effective solution is prayer. But I am not speaking of the way that many so-called Christians pray. Look at it this way: When we are studying to learn a particular trade, language, or discipline, we do not devote 5 or ten minutes to our studies once or twice a week! On the contrary,we will devote many hours of study in order to achieve our goal. Along with time spent, their are certain techniques, and methods of learning that we employ to facilitate, and to expedite the process. This is how we must approach prayer. The technique that you must learn to employ is the art of visualization. There are many resources on line and books that can teach you how to do this. Visualization is an important aspect of prayer. You are not only reaching out to God, but you are actively participating in the process.

      And what can be the possible outcome of such prayer? There are many possibilities. This man may have a sudden change of heart , and give up his evil ways. He may be motivated to move to another city, or even leave the state, or the country. He may also suffer a brain aneurysm, or his heart may suddenly, and unexpectedly stop beating. At any rate, you will be able to neutralize the problem with prayer. A gun is a dangerous and very primitive form of self-defense. Do not be deceived by mindless donkeys and baboons who will tell you otherwise!

      1. wilderness profile image89
        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Or, more likely, the outcome will be that she is beaten to death by the stalker. 

        This is much like going to a witch doctor for a stomach ache and having him dance over you and spray chicken blood around.  Or using magnets to cure cancer.

        Doing nothing is seldom a reasonable answer to a problem, and prayer is as close to nothing as you can get.  After all, if God's plan is for you to be beaten or killed, you will be beaten or killed.  If it isn't, you won't.  And all the prayer in the world isn't going to change God's plan for you.

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
          wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12698501_f1024.jpg

          You claim that prayer is foolishness. You have also often stated in the past that you do not believe in God. But now you comment:

          " After all, if God's plan is for you to be beaten or killed, you will be beaten or killed.  If it isn't, you won't.  And all the prayer in the world isn't going to change God's plan for you."

          So now you are claiming to be an authority on God; a God you don't even believe in! Furthermore, if you truly believe your own words, then you will have to admit that if God's plan is for you to be beaten or killed, then a gun isn't going to save you either. This is according to your own words, and once again I will leave you standing in the corner.

          1. wilderness profile image89
            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Hah!  You got me there - a gun won't help if God's plan is different.  Or maybe His plan is for you to escape...IF you take reasonable action.  Praying for the strength to pull the trigger might help if you believe He will give it to you; praying for Him to do something won't.

            Better buy a gun and pray for strength. If the liberals will let you, anyway.

            But I have the same right to be an authority on God as you or anyone else; not a person on earth has ever examined Him and thus all go on their personal beliefs about what and who He is.

            1. Doug Cutler profile image65
              Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              There,s a couple old sayings that may apply here:
              "It is better to not need and have than need and not have".

              "God helps those that help themselve's". Places in the Bible the Jews had to put out an effort first before God would do His part.

              If you get killed before your time then you may have to come back and do a life again to finish what you were supposed to do.This, of coarse, requires a belief in reincarnation.

              1. wilderness profile image89
                wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                That's been my experience; that God only helps those that do the work themselves.

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12698669.jpg

                  Anyone can see that the responses to my original comment are indicative of what is wrong with the world. None of you have read, or understood my original comment. Your responses provide evidence of this. I was very clear in stating that prayer involved work, study, and an understanding of the art of visualization. All of you who have responded obviously perceive prayer from a simplistic, Judeo- Christian perspective. Prayer is not a matter of taking 5 minutes to ask Santa Claus for help when you find yourself in a bad situation.

                  Prayer is a weapon that can be used and directed at a target, just as any other weapon. The United States government has taken the power of mind over matter seriously for a number of years. During the last 20 years, the U.S. government has spent well over 20 million dollars on psychic research. Material weapons have no will of their own. When you control the will of the man holding the gun, then the gun becomes useless. If the general public should ever understand the true power that each individual possesses, world governments would no longer be able to subjugate and control the masses.

                  This is why the government does not acknowledge a great amount of their research to the public.There is a scientific basis for this phenomena. There is an electrical field that surrounds the brain, as well as the entire human body. Brain waves can be transmitted just like radio waves over great distances. The mind and the body of a receiver can be affected through the transmission of brain waves. When such a transmission is combined with the power of God through prayer, there is no weapon known to man that can stand against it.

                  There is no need for a second amendment, or even a Constitution. We only need to learn how to pray.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    You are saying we need to use the power of prayer to control the will of a man, (or woman,) /shooter with a gun?

                    Question: How can we learn to tap into this power and thereby avoid being shot by a shooter and/or stop the tyranny of local government / world government?

                  2. wilderness profile image89
                    wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    And mind control has what to do with "Visualization is an important aspect of prayer. You are not only reaching out to God, but you are actively participating in the process."?  Are you saying that if you pretend and "visualize" enough that God will control minds for you?

                    Sorry, but you can visualize a god all you want but that won't bring it into being.  Nor will visualizing anything else, either. 

                    "Brain waves can be transmitted just like radio waves over great distances."

                    And your proof of this is in the unpublished and unacknowledged research the government does?

                    "The mind and the body of a receiver can be affected through the transmission of brain waves."

                    Same thing - your documented, peer-reviewed proof, please?

                    "When such a transmission is combined with the power of God through prayer, there is no weapon known to man that can stand against it."

                    As there is no god to have that power, the sentence is nonsense.  Unless you care to prove your god exists?

                    Seems your every statement is completely unsupported by any scientific research in spite of your claim to the contrary.  Why should anyone believe in your god, either?

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          LOL, guys!
          -most come home and watch TV! Not me!

  16. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    Mental illness is NEVER going t be legislated out of existence ,   SO , mass killings will always happen ,    by whatever means !   

    Don't you just love election seasons , the same topics float to the surface of the stink pot time after time after time .    Gun control , health care ,  economic showdowns , partisan   idealisms ,  foreign policies ,  Blah ,  blah , ...........

    It's really too bad that there ARE only two parties ,  if it was three , four or ten the issues would multiply ,ten fold .   By that time some far more important issues would be part and parcel to serious discussions .  Thereby  accomplishing real and important  solutions , Instead  we  will continue along the same ole same ole party divisions .............never accomplishing anything!

    One day we can brag to our great grandchildren how  "Yup  we held to our  party lines and  stayed the course !

  17. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    The only way that prayer can  be utilized in crisis is in the acceptance  of which  that - whatever is going to happen  , will happen , if you let it  !  So yea , pray hard and then prepare  yourself  in that doing whatever  you can  to preserve the life that the all mighty gave you , is best  done  by a  vigilance  in strength .

  18. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    "With practice, an individual can learn how to project their brain waves outward toward a receiver. The brainwaves of the sender can interrupt, or influence the brain waves of the receiver by connecting to the receivers electrical field."

      Fascinating!
    How can I learn to do this?


    It stands to reason, I must actually be able to have control over my own brain waves first.
       Right?

    So the real solution to gun violence is not gun control, but brain-wave control.

    How?
    If you can answer that you will be my hero too. (even though I am like 114 years of age.)

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
      wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12698974.jpg

      As I said, there are there are resources online that can help you learn this.However,here is an example of the method I started using when I was 9 years old to make people call me on the telephone:

      Find a quite place. Close your eyes and visualize the person's home. Visualize their address. Don't say the words in your mind but instead "see" the address like you might look from the street and see the house number on the house, or their name or address on the mailbox. See as much detail as you can.   Visualize yourself walking into their house. Imagine they are sitting in a chair, or standing by a window. Now, visualize the person picking up their phone . Visualize them dialing each number,or using the keypad. See the numbers, and even hear them say the numbers out loud as they dial. Now see them put the phone to their ear. Hear the sound of your phone ringing. Remember, paint the picture in your minds eye with as much detail as possible. Repeat this process with intervals of several minutes in between until the person calls. It is important to remember that you must send the receiver images, or pictures  instead of words. You are showing them exactly what to do, but they will think it was their idea.

      Once you master this you can get more creative. After a while you won't have to worry about using a gun for protection. It's the predator who will need protection from you!

      P.S. It is important that you "believe". A skeptic will never make this work. Belief that you can do this is a key component. It even says in the Bible: "The faith of a mustard seed can move a mountain." This should be taken literally.

      1. wilderness profile image89
        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        The last paragraph seems the most important, as it gives an "out" for failure.  "You didn't believe, so it didn't happen and you needed a gun after all". 

        We used to tell our kids that if they didn't believe in Santa he wouldn't come.  Not much difference, is there?

  19. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    So lets see , Mind control by one self , IS the answer to  control of ones environment  be that criminal behavior or whatever huh  ?

    Yes , how fascinating !   Kind of like personal accountability ?

  20. Alternative Prime profile image59
    Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

    Now that EVERYONE seems to be done with all the Ancient, Lame, Irrelevant, Nonsensical Excuses like "If we Regulate Guns, people will just use a Can Opener to WHACK someone", or " If we Regulate Guns, people will just pick up their automobile and KLONK it on someones CRANIUM", or, "If we Regulate Guns, people will just WHITTLE a Fresh New ToothPick and Stick it IN", or, "If we Regulate Guns, people will just use Jeb Bush's Sparkling Personality to Kill Someone" ~

    So, what's the Verdict? Do something about Reducing the Number of Guns in Circulation thereby Reducing Gun Violence, or do Absolutely NOTHING as Usual?

    1. profile image0
      Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      From what I've seen here, sensible people agree that we need to enforce current gun laws strictly, including requirements to keep guns in a secure location, and strongly prosecute those that don't abide by these laws.  What sensible people are NOT agreeing to is the infringement upon 2nd Amendment rights - something which you insist upon.  And something that MUST NO BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!!

      1. Alternative Prime profile image59
        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        "Freedom" is not, and never has been ABSOLUTE ~

        1. profile image0
          Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Even so, sensible people are not agreeing to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights.

    2. wilderness profile image89
      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Ahh.  If you could only produce any evidence that removing guns will reduce the murder rate you'd find more people on your side.

      But you can't, so you resort to silly and ridiculous statements in an effort to trivialize the truth.  Well done!  (I realize that's all you have to offer, but really!  Can't you do even a little better than that?)

      1. Alternative Prime profile image59
        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Well wilderness, your name pretty much telegraphs what your intentions and or sentiment are ~ Like all Ultra-Rural Dwellers who share a Home Made Domicile with Bigfoots, Leprechans, & Crows, attempting to mitigate and or solve the Gun Violence Epidemic is not within your Purview nor a Primary Concern ~

        How about those individuals who LIVE in a semblance of NORMALCY, where People actually interact with other People in a densely populated city?? Lame, Ancient Excuses we've listened to for decades, or Real Tangible ACTION?

        It's a Mathematical Certainty that Extra-terrestrail Life Exists elsewhere within our universe, just like it's a Mathematical Certainty if we REMOVE and Significantly REDUCE the Number Guns in Circulation, Gun Violence will be REDUCED as well ~

        1. wilderness profile image89
          wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          But I didn't ask that (perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension?).  I very clearly ask if you could show that the murder rate will go down.  Not the subset of "Gun" murders, but the overall rate for ALL murders.

          Whereupon you respond with a pack of insults and a statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.  Well done!

          Want to try again and this time actually provide an answer to the question?  Or are you, as always, reduced to unsupported opinion, invective and a quick change of subject?

          1. Alternative Prime profile image59
            Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure how I could possibly be more Clear & Concise ~ Talk about Convoluting a rather simple concept ~

            Basic Mathmatics ~ Significantly  REDUCE the number of Guns in Circulation and Gun Violence will be Significantly Reduced ~ A Mathematical Certainty ~

            You can read it however you'd like wilderness but I have confidence others  will surely understand the Basic Concept ~ Unless of course they are Backward Republicans ~

            1. wilderness profile image89
              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Still don't comprehend.  Here, I'll quote myself: "If you could only produce any evidence that removing guns will reduce the murder rate you'd find more people on your side."

              Now, look carefully at the bolded part.  You will not find the term "gun" in there; it refers to the homicide rate as a whole rather than a subset. 

              Pay careful attention here, because it is a Mathematical Certainty.  If you reduce the number of murders by one subset (gun murders) and replace it with an equal number of another subset (knife, or bomb, or any other or combination of others), you have accomplished exactly nothing  Because dead people don't care what tool was used.

              You can check this statement by simple addition/subtraction, using any test numbers you wish.  If it is too complex, any second grade teacher can help you with the arithmetic.

              So.  Back to the question for the third time: can you show that removing guns results in a decrease in the murder rate?  Not, mind you, the gun murder rate, but the overall rate.  Or is the Basic Concept still too complex - something simply beyond Backward Democrats that don't understand arithmetic?

              1. Alternative Prime profile image59
                Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                wilderness ~ LEARN Basic Math ~

                I've listened to similar Old Worn Out STALE Excuses & Critcally Flawed Republican Logic for Decades ~ It was NONSENSE then and it's  still NONSENSE Today ~

                I wish republicans who think like you could realize how ridiculous they sound ~ Using your logic, or lack thereof, if individuals might meet their doom from a vehicles Faulty Brakes, why enforce a Seat-Belt Law? ~ If a Passenger Jet-Liner could be downed by an Electronic Failure, why secure the Cockpits or compel Continuing Education for Pilots? ~ If an individual might die from Cancer, why even exert the effort to fight Heart Disease? ~

                ALL Ludicrous scenarios using your LOGIC ~ Now you know why Progressives need to act unilaterally whenever possible, when you're dealing with an Irrationally Nonsensical GOP that lives in "PRETEND-Land", what Alternative do we have? ~

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  This BAD A$$ GUN was Banned in US!  But, I would like this gun in MY purse! How come i cannot have it? yikes?
                  http://www.zdnet.com/article/worlds-sma … ers-fears/

                2. wilderness profile image89
                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Still no answer.  Perhaps it is true - that you are incapable of understanding simple arithmetic.  Or perhaps it is just that you refuse to address the question because it doesn't lead to the conclusion you want? 

                  Probably the second, I think, which means you aren't worth talking to.  No one that pretends such basic facts don't exist is - "My mind is made up, so don't confuse me with facts".  Works well for those that don't care about anything but their own opinion.

              2. mybrianthe fixer profile image60
                mybrianthe fixerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Hi wilderness, it seemes to me that you live there. where real people live guns are a big part in the equation of murder. any human that has one may kill another being (animal, human or other). The gun its self wont kill or fire unless a finger with intent be it in defence or anger pulls the trigger. no guns less crime. though i could always buy an axe. or someone could hack your life on line. for me no guns please. peace and Become.

                1. wilderness profile image89
                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  And "no guns" is your choice for your life.  It doesn't have to be the choice for everyone, though, and isn't.  And that's fine, either way.

        2. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
          wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12699925.jpg
          Archie Bunker insulted a lot of people simply because he lived in a state of fear and self-loathing. The world was just too big for Archie; simply to complex, and too hard to understand.

          1. wilderness profile image89
            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Guess so.  The concept that a killer doesn't need a gun to kill with is incomprehensible to some people.  Just flat out too complex for them.

  21. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    I have come to know one thing for certain in this thread , although in many other ones as well .    The original Fathers of our country WOULD shake there heads  in shame at the over-all opinions of what we SHOULD do to our constitution !  The US. constitution was designed  by  genius level  people , to NOT be altered ,  WHY ? because it was the first time in history that a  group of leaders  designed such a  written rule of law to PROTECT  the people FROM  government, as  such an entity   will always force power over people  , they always have and they always will !  And they are right here and now , sanctioned  by the like of the O.P.!

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If they wanted to make a cement block out of the Constitution, why did they purposefully insert a method for changing the Constitution as the times change?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Ahorseback is right. Some things never change. You think human nature changes?
        If so, think again.

        Worth repeating about a million times:

        "... it was the first time in history that a group of leaders designed such a written rule of LAW to PROTECT the people FROM government, as such an entity will always force power over people"

        and furthermore:

                               "They always have and they always will!"

  22. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    All You Need Is Love.

  23. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    To all of  those  in favor of gun controls !

    THE STUPIDITY of  The attack on the second amendment is the wrong front in the great cultural  war  in America ,  The amount of gun crimes and all other crime as well ,  parallels   exactly with  a hellish INCREASE  in illicit drugs and extremely  higher HEROIN use for the last ten - twenty years ,   

    That  and the given that  our court systems , law enforcement agencies , prisons , and especially  including a huge diversion of health care dollars explains fully to me  , the REAL problem with gun crimes in America today !

    Want to know what's  gone wrong in schools  , churches colleges , in the streets ,YOUR CHILDREN ARE ALL HIGHER THAN KITES   ! Most illicit drug use increases are of what age ?  17  - to 27 year olds ,  Talk about denial of what's real  and wrong in ALL  our American  towns and cities ,   THE DRUG  ALTERED MIND . Period .

  24. colorfulone profile image78
    colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

    I want to share this meme here.
    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12701448.jpg

    Yes, it is!

    1. colorfulone profile image78
      colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12702005.jpg

    2. TwerkZerker profile image64
      TwerkZerkerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      LOL! I've never seen this explained so perfectly and so hillariously!

  25. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    ANYONE  that can read , AND has read the second amendment's twenty seven words [27 words]  and CAN  interpret the simplicity of those words to mean ANYTHING but the right of the people to keep and bear arms ,  Is reading something  into that which  every supreme court member has read and interpreted  to mean exactly what they were intended ,  ................BUT you have somehow  found some opposite meaning ?

    Doesn't know how to read.
    Period !

  26. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    No Kathryn. You are living in a world of make believe and historical revisionism. The Pilgrims, and all of the other Invaders did not just occupy vacant land. They stole and murdered, and drove the people further and further west as they swarmed across the land like hungry locusts. If you studied American history you would know this. You have attempted to make comparisons but there is no comparison. You have essentially compared the Green River Killer to a man who got drunk and shot his best friend for sleeping with his wife.

    Yes, we can argue that murder is murder, but here we see there is no comparison. Regardless of what injustices occurred on this continent before 1492, they were not on the scale of genocide. 100 million people were killed as a result of the European Invasion. That means that in spite of what came before, the people were not committing acts of genocide. If so, there would not have been 100 million for the Europeans to kill. What happened here was the greatest Holocaust in the history of the world.  A foreigner who is indifferent is simply a man with no soul.. But a man who would embrace the very evil that so ruthlessly murdered and dispossessed his ancestors, is not only a man with no soul, but he is  a despicable perversion of nature. Such a man doesn't even have the right to walk this Earth. He is far worse than the Invader.

    The current government does not work. This government has been at war since the very beginning, and  the killing has never stopped.  Once they killed nearly all of us, they exported their acts of terror back across the ocean. And we see today they continue their killing in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Just look at this Forum thread and listen to the voices. Many who have commented here are blood thirsty, and anxious to kill. Any excuse will do. In Florida they are so anxious to kill they created the :"Stand Your Ground" law. And so, now they don't have to work so hard to tell a lie.

    And speaking of lies: One of the biggest lies that has ever been told is that the Indigenous people scalped the Colonialists. This is only a half truth at best. What really happened is that on many occasions, throughout the years and across the continent, the Europeans offered a bounty for Indigenous scalps. They even had different rewards, depending on whether it was a man ,woman, or child. After the Europeans started committing these atrocities, some of the people retaliated and returned the favor. When you study real American History, you come to understand that many of the atrocities that were committed by the people against the Europeans, were only defensive measures.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      wB
      The indigenous people totally killed off the Wooly Mammoths, Great Bison and the Saber Tooth Tigers. Yet the descendants of the Oai people remain to this day.

      They could join us and win. What will they win?
      Protection and freedom.

      It was a matter of evolution.
      It was a matter of what was waiting in the wings of the astral world.
      What was waiting?
      Science and technology. An enlightened age of autonomy, independence and strong wills.
      Obviously.

      TWISI

    2. Doug Cutler profile image65
      Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus,[6] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).[7]

      Far short of the 100million you claim. How many were killed by their own kind? Diseases took most lives.
      How many where planned diseases and how many where accidental?
      There were estimated to be 100million alive in 1900. You have your figures wrong.
      The Indians were not blameless as you imply.
      The Indians allowed the settlers in. It just didn't work out as it should have.
      I suspect you are Indian. Just like you said to me. It doesn't make much difference. It is now what counts and the heart of the individual. Not that left wing communist group stuff.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
        wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12702441.jpg
        No Doug, you've got your figures wrong.  I have been studying American racist rhetoric for years. You can slip that by a lot of people but I simply know better. Bartolome de las Casas estimated in the mid 16th century that his countrymen had killed 40 million of my people. And that was just in the beginning!

        And I implied nothing. If the shoe doesn't fit then you don't have to wear it. Why so defensive? You also bring up the classic "stop living in the past" rhetoric. That is quite interesting since most Americans are still living in the past. When they visit the  monument at Mt. Rushmore ,they are living in the past. When they celebrate Columbus Day, they are living in the past. When they celebrate the 4th of July they are living in the past. When they put the faces of dead presidents on coin and currency, they are living in the past. And when they sing a national anthem  that was written in 1814, they are most certainly living in the past.

        I live today, but I will always honor those who came before; those brave warriors who fought to prevent an abomination like Los Angeles,or New York City, from ever rising up out of the Earth. There are many like me, and we are working to create a better world. And that world will not be a continuation of this one, but a continuation of the world that was so rudely interrupted in 1492. It is a very strange thing: the man who glorifies industrial pollution,asphalt, poverty, and war, and then justifies it all with a Constitution. In the world that is coming such a man will not exist. In fact, he will not even be remembered. Hafa Adai!

  27. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    America as a nation needs to dissolve or at least revamp  the reservation system that it has allowed  to exist ,   Anyone who has ever visited them  knows how economically  unsettling it is too drive through one . With few exceptions , graft , corruption,  internal  political conflict , and mostly apathy ,by reservation leaders , has done more to hold back the economic stability of the Native American .     

    Why in todays  world ,extreme  poverty , untold hunger , lack of economic advancement, low quality education systems  , and other systematic failure is allowed ,  in fact  programmed  to continue  , while a few native leaders get rich from  casino gambling ,  mineral resources , fossil fuel production ,  natural gas exports ,  and government subsidies , Is a sham and a shame !

    Have you ever driven through Pine Ridge Rez. , if you haven't  you should  ,  Kayenta  or  Farmington Az..,  , or   the Blackfoot reservation .  in Montana ?   One who simply drives through some of these places  and has any feelings towards  humanity whatsoever , would be ashamed of how such poverty lives today inside  the best nation in the world .    This continued existence  IS by default ,  the fault of the American government BUT  , it is the fault of non-assimilation on the part of the tribes   too , that allows hunger ,disease  , and complete systematic  failure to continue unaltered by time.

    1. Doug Cutler profile image65
      Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The average age of the Indian was about 28 back in the past. Between all the infighting, war with settlers and diseases. Some want to return to those times. I have known Indians that have assimilated and are doing just as well as the average American. As far as being happier on the reservations???  Maybe W Biscuit can fill us in on that. Have read that some of the poorest countries are the happiest. Everyone is in the same situation and care for one another.
      The last massacre was in 1911. How many Indians would be massacring each other today if 1492 didn't happen, as W Biscuit says??

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
        wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12702890.jpg

        The fiction that you have produced here is legendary, and is as American as apple pie. If you want to learn American History, it is available to you, and anyone else who seeks the truth. But my experience tells me that you and others here are not interested in a truth that could solve the problems your nation faces today. It is sad  that the average American will cling to the foolishness of violence, and the Second Amendment, and consequently continue on a path to destruction.

        They would rather destroy themselves and the world around them, than admit that for 500 years they have been following the wrong path, and that their only progress is the progression of a terminal disease. It is ironic that you have suggested I am filled with hate, when in truth I am one of the few who have taken the time to show you the way out of a burning building. The American people have nothing to fear  from the North Koreans, or the Muslims. The only terrorist threat they need be concerned about is the one that began in 1452, with the issuance of the Papal Bull "Dum Diversas". I have seen what is coming, and if this country does not change it's course, the very Earth itself will spit her out like a rotten Cheeseburger.

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I never expect much in response to reasonable  posts and am not ever disappointed.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
            wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12702984.jpg

            The picture that accompanies my succinct, and timely reply ,exemplifies the futility of materialism, or any imagined protection from the inevitable natural conclusion of corruptible flesh. In a day, a week, a month, and a year from now, there will be more killing,death,mayhem, and destruction. "Same As It Ever Was", in  a world full of "reasonable" people just like yourself. Yes, I am very disappointed.

          2. Doug Cutler profile image65
            Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You do know that the English and most settlers were not Catholic and cared less what the Pope in 1452 or 93' had to say. They came here for freedom. Not to conquer. You seem to think all Christians have the same exact beliefs. I believe in re-incarnation most Christian religions don't. Yet there are many Christians that do. I was raised in a family that didn't go to church except my mom at times. She had me baptized. I studied some of the Eastern religions in my twenties. Didn't join any religion because they all had problems. That does not mean I do not believe in God and spirits. My view is some religion is better than none in an attempt to keep people decent. The major exception is the religion today that allows, honor killings, child rape, be-headings and that 72 virgin thing. Women are considered a sub class.

            1. Doug Cutler profile image65
              Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              The last comment was meant for response to W. Biscuit not ahorse. Accidents happen.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
                wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12703074.jpg

                Your comments and assessments are based on a limited understanding of History. It is the Catholic Church under Pope Nicholas the V that laid the foundation for racism, sanctioned the atrocities against the Indigenous, and gave it's blessing  to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It is all written and well documented by European scholars.

                The world was not then , nor is it now controlled by peasants. The world is controlled by the rich and the powerful. A majority of the settlers who came to this continent were peasants who had no power whatsoever. It does not matter what they thought of the Catholic Church, or the nobility, just like it does not matter today. If the Catholic Church had wanted to stop the genocide, they could have used their power and influence to do so at anytime during the last 500 years, but they did not. Through the Papal Bull, Dum Diversas, they planted the seed that laid the foundation for white supremacy and racism in America, and throughout the world; a racism that was eagerly embraced by the colonialist peasantry. Manifest Destiny, and the racism that followed helped to assuage the guilt of Christians, and gave them a justification for the cruelties inflicted upon the African and the Indigenous people. Manifest Destiny is rooted in Zionism, and the Catholic Church. The genocide continues all across this continent today, yet many are not even aware.

                P.S.
                Let's not kid ourselves. You say the settlers came for freedom. On this point we can agree. Many came for the freedom to steal land, and to freely satisfy their sexual desires. With impunity, the Colonialists could freely rape and enslave young girls and women of African and Indigenous heritage. God Bless America.

                1. wilderness profile image89
                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Can't defend the Catholic church - their abuses of power are legion - but it's no worse than most other power groups.  Including the African and American Indian peoples of the past, who inflicted the same cruelties on each other that the Catholics did.

            2. Alternative Prime profile image59
              Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Yup Doug Cutler ~ "The Settlers" came here for "Freedom" as you claim, then shortly thereafter  began to ENSLAVE an Entire race of Human Beings ~

              You nor anyone else can be Absolutely Certain WHY this Country was Settled, or more accurately "Unsettled", an Atrociously Vicious Attempted Extermination of the Indigenous Tribes Purely for Selfish Reasons ~

              The AUDACITY of your suspect claims can be disputed and Nobody Truly knows Exactly why our ancestors came here, but the Enslavement of an Entire Race of African People is Unambiguously CLEAR ~

              1. Doug Cutler profile image65
                Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                The first setters came here to get away from religious persecution and find a better life. It was not to plunder, rape and kill. The British sent a bunch of their jailed in the mix. This was probably where a lot of trouble came from.
                They were even friends with some of the Indians. Do you not know what Thanks Giving is about?
                Do you not know that there were free blacks in the North? And how ridiculous to say enslave a whole race. The U.S. never held or tried to hold Africa. It was the blacks in Africa that raided other blacks and sold them into the slave trade.
                All that was then. What we do now is what you should be concentrating on. How many of your folk on the reservations are willing to give up their guns. Are they willing to go back to arrows and spears for hunting?
                If you have been reading the posts I asked about the happiness of life on the reservations. Some of the poorest are also the happiest when most are in the same situation and they help one another.
                Different situation when one is just concerned about ones self. Have you spent time on the reservations?

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry to burst your bubble but Thanksgiving never happened . That is a popular  fairy tale. You commented: "...The British sent a bunch of their jailed in the mix. This was probably where a lot of trouble came from..." After reading this article I am inclined to think that George Washington may have also been in that "mix".

                  Here is an excerpt from an article in "Indian Country": http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c … iny-149753

                  in 1779—he instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. He said, “lay waste all the settlements around... that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.” In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not to “listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected.”

                  His anti-Indian sentiments were again made clear in 1783 when he compared Indians with wolves, saying “Both being beast of prey, tho’ they differ in shape.” After a defeat, Washington’s troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois from the hips down to make boot tops or leggings. Those who survived called the first president, “Town Destroyer.” Within a five-year period, 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    He wasn't anti-Indian at first but they became more and more vicious and a force to reckon with.
                    He lived on this soil. What was he supposed to do?
                      Give up and go back to Britain?
                    Looks like he was more in the mood to stay than leave.
                    They should have cooperated.
                    Of course, they (the Indians) may have been agitated by the bad guys in the mix.

                    However, G. Washington was NOT one of them.  For gosh sakes!

                  2. Doug Cutler profile image65
                    Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    Why should you believe what you say Washington was said to have said and done? When I bring up a
                    point you say it is all lies. I can say the same about articles you point out. The Indians should have sided with Washington and not listen to the Brits or the Frenchies. Instead they went on a murdering spree. So they got what they deserved for "F'n" with Washington and innocent settlers. I will admit that later drastic actions by Jackson and others was uncalled for.
                    I told you before originally the Indians didn't own land and just conquered each other and took over the area until a stronger meaner group took over. Later they were given areas and some was taken and forced the Indians to move to another
                    What does all this have to do with guns today? Stay focused.

                  3. Quilligrapher profile image70
                    Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    This forum is expected to accept this distorted segment of history as evidence that George Washington harbored anti-Indian sentiments during the American Revolution. However, after adding the historical details conveniently omitted from the narrative, a totally different picture emerges.

                    The American Revolution literally splintered the Iroquois Federation and ruptured the unity of the Six Nations. Most Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga, and Cayuga sided with the British while most of the Tuscarora and the Oneida Nations supported the American patriots fighting for independence from the crown.

                    In 1779, following the Cobleskill, Wyoming Valley, and Cherry Valley massacres, George Washington issued an order to Major General John Sullivan to eliminate the joint Iroquois and British attacks bring death and destruction to the American settlements in the Finger Lakes Region of Western New York. Major General Sullivan fulfilled his mission to overrun that part of the country and to totally destroy the Iroquois-British alliance. {1}

                    In less than four months, the Sullivan Expedition fought only one major battle. The Iroquois, on the other hand, fled to the North just ahead of the advancing Continental Army. Sullivan met little resistance as he destroyed crops, decimated the Iroquois economic infrastructure, and leveled about 40 abandoned villages.  Many of the indigenous people sought the protection of the British forces at Fort Niagara, but most perished during that same winter because the British lacked the resources to provide enough food and shelter. {2}

                    So, after adding the parts of the narrative omitted from the article mentioned in the post above, George Washington’s instructions to Major General John Sullivan were not an expression of anti-Indian sentiment at all. Rather, his command to General Sullivan was a military directive aimed at eliminating a formidable native force that was killing patriots on behalf of the Crown. Iroquois that supported the American cause were not destroyed by Washington’s military strategy but the Iroquois that chose to attack American settlements and to fight alongside America’s enemies did endure a significant amount of carnage and annihilation.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} https://web.archive.org/web/20061012154 … bc3882c0c6
                    See The American Revolution
                    {2} http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent … th_century

  28. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    Today the  whole picture should be , has to be viewed in 3/D reality . All too many like wrenchbisket  romanticize , idealize , self victimize and try to re-write  , revolutionize , alter our  history to their liking .  One might think that there had been  enough conflict and war , enough anger and  divisiveness .   We can all chose to be like Ward Churchill  ,one I have listened to a lot ,  some say a "fake Indian ", who has adopted and sparked the  re-ignition of Native American hatred  for all things "white ".  Or we can pick more peaceful, productive ways of healing  this past  !

    Yet today , the reservations  are a cultural mess .   Economically , politically , educationally . their youth are disconnected from the elders , alcohol , meth , heroin , are  plagues running rampant.   What do these people  like wrenchbisket  propose  for development ,   for progress , advancement ?  Nothing !
    It's all bout Columbus and his syphilis spreading  battleships !

    Funny , I have seen the reservations , studied the history , " theirs "  and " ours" ,   I have read of my own family ancestral scalping and murder by native Indians  , and wars against Indians in colonial New England .     But where are we today ?  Still fighting a war 200 hundred years ago  ?  Instead of advancing together as one people - today !  Seems to me there's enough collective guilt for ALL of us  ,  there are never many cause's worth glorifying in any war.

  29. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12703137.jpg

    Like many other times in the past, you started out a winner, but you should have quit while you were ahead! Like I have already stated ad nauseum, if the cruelties here before the arrival of Columbus had equaled all the cruelties that came after, there would have been no one here left for Columbus to kill. I will continue to pray for all of you who seek the protection of a gun and a useless document, instead of the loving kindness that remains captive ... and hidden in your hearts.

  30. colorfulone profile image78
    colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

    Wrench Biscuit wrote,  "Guns have only lead to more guns and more death. The intelligent path is through prayer, and an outpouring of love upon humanity. A Weapon of Prayer is the only thing strong enough to destroy the ruling class, and to free ourselves from the cesspool of their evil empire."

    This statement has crossed my mind several times since I first read it. I believe that you are sounding the alarm for God's people to pray. 

    I just read an article by Dutch Sheets and was reminded of your statement and wanted to let you know that it did not go unnoticed. 
    http://www.dutchsheets.org/im-sounding- … c99cf85f60

    Appeal to Heaven

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12703146_f1024.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tree_Flag

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I also think prayers are heard as we quietly do our best in being sincere and aware and careful in our dealings with others and careful with our very thoughts.

    2. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
      wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12703799.jpg
      Thank you. I followed the link. I can relate to his frustration, and I applaud him for his continued efforts and belief in prayer. The 5 human senses are very limited. Too many people define reality with these limited senses, and dismiss things unheard, and things not seen. It is only human arrogance that leads men to believe that they simply "materialized" along with the universe, without the influence of a superior being, or force. I have wondered if God has created two types of human: The soulless who only serve a particular function in the material world, and men who possess a soul with the potential to transcend this animal nature. Of course a soulless man would not believe in God, since he is only going back into the dust. I am reminded of the "replicants" in the 1982 movie "Blade Runner". It was quite pitiful.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Why is that human "arrogance" to think that the Universe (and everything in it) and god are one in the same thing?  I would seem to me more reasonable to think it arrogance to assert your religion is the only way to conceive of god, which is exactly what all three monotheistic religions try to do; killing millions in the process.

      2. wilderness profile image89
        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I would have said that it is tremendous human arrogance and ego that allows them to claim a god based solely on their imagination without any evidence for it.  "I believe it without knowing, so it has to be true because I know everything".

        1. Doug Cutler profile image65
          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          The evidence is all around. There are a lot of gods but only one God.

  31. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    <"I have known Indians that have assimilated and are doing just as well as the average American."> Thanks Doug.

    Yes, our system is just SO TERRIBLE!
    Forget about CIVILIZATION!!!!!

    1. colorfulone profile image78
      colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am a civilian of the United States, not the divided states.
      I believe in "we the people".

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        yeah, and…?
        Do you believe in the electoral college?
        Do you believe in states rights and their borders?'

        1. colorfulone profile image78
          colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          O' sweetie, I will try to bring it on (later)...but right now I am studying Scriptures in a new light, which is stimulating to my DNA.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Okay, I hope you will indeed try and come back to explain yourself here.
            Can't wait.
            Meanwhile, I hope your DNA molecules enjoy themselves. smile

            1. Doug Cutler profile image65
              Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              There are said to be techniques that energize certain unused DNA that open new areas of consciousness.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                well, Good!

                much needed

        2. Doug Cutler profile image65
          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          The electoral college was to prevent states with large populations from railroading states with smaller.
          It has its uses but not for presidential elections and such. Yes, I do believe in state rights. If you like the laws in one state more than another you can move. Or vote in laws most agree on.

  32. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    Archaic Guns are probably going to be the least of our worries as we evolve into the New Age:

    They will become obsolete in the face of new types of weaponry based on advanced technology.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/incredib … launcher-2

  33. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    Okaayyy.!...back to the subject- Assault weapons , and the collective ignorance in the  interpretation of the very term ,  I don't actually know where the descriptive  term came from .  'Assault weapon ', most likely something  drummed up by the all knowing media  .     If it was in fact , a term invented by the military or by the police ,  it sure has served the anti- gun crowd  very well , The sad part is though  , 'assault weapons ......the real one's that is  , aren't even seen on the streets- but rarely .

    In fact  ,outside of image , the only assault weapon used in crimes are Fake ones ,   Yes, fake ! I say  fake because , Todays legally own-able assault weapon is but an image of the real weapon ! Why , you ask ?   Because of the  make up of  military or police grade assault weaponry ------ having  fully automatic firing capability --------. Fully illegal to own by civilian sources .

    So the weapon below -

  34. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12704015_f1024.jpg

    Is but an image  of a REAL assault weapon .     TOTALLY fake !, Why ?       Because it can only fire one round of ammo with one pull of the trigger !  As legally defined for civilian ownership .    Granted --------,there is little visual difference -----between the military version and the civilian version except for it's internal operation .   

    However , and to  my point !   Anti-gun advocates group BOTH  types of guns[ in fact all types of guns ] as assault weapons  for the ease of  their war against ALL gun ownership AND a the second amendment as well   !    That is the sad part of our two cultures EVER reaching any serious compromises  in the legal and  ethical  , moral or comprehensive ADDITIONAL  limitations in  gun control legislation !     

    Anti's have no  care nor  any concern for separating  any groups or  categories of gun ownership, one  from another,,   Nor do they separate Legal  and Law abiding  owners from those  who legally or  Illegally  acquire ,  use in the commission of a crime ,  or otherwise commit crimes with guns.   

    TO ANTI GUN ADVOCATES  ,THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELMER FUDD IN HIS PLAID HUNTING HAT AND JACKET  CHASING BUGGS BUNNY AROUND A HOLE IN THE GROUND - THE  THE JOHN HINKLEY'S , THE LEE HARVEY OSWALDS',  OR THE  ISIS TERRORIST'S .

    It is this  deliberately manufactured  political  misconception , that anti -gun advocates use to keep any common sense approaches to  ANY  further gun control , even practical controls ,  from happening .

    Any that proves intent as to what they really want -  An ALL OUT ban on ALL guns , and a re-peal of the ENTIRE second amendment !

  35. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12705704.jpg

    A little something that would mean little to anyone but myself and my own family history .  BUT  I do love it when the reality of our colonial past's  is ignored by TODAY"S forums  !

  36. colorfulone profile image78
    colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

    Interesting post, wrenchBiscuit.  The majority of lawyers, judges and governments are deceptive.  It is entertaining, that is too true.

    1. Doug Cutler profile image65
      Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I wouldn't compare the justice system today with what the Constitution meant. The Judges are appointed by the president and the people have no say other than getting rid of said president by voting them out or impeachment etc.  If you get a bunch of judges appointed over a couple different presidents those judges are then a majority even though the majority of the country is against what they are pulling. From what I read the judges are appointed for life or until they can no longer function as a judge.

      1. colorfulone profile image78
        colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Frightening thoughts after reading your post, Doug.  Which led me to do a little research on the justice system reform that the president is not giving up on getting sentences reduced. 

        FBI director Robert Mueller is confident that the prison system is a fertile breeding ground for Islamist radicals with 35,000 to 40,000 converts each year.  Many whose jihad thinking caused them to commit murder after being released from prison.  Sobering.

        1. Doug Cutler profile image65
          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Just makes it harder to clean up Obama,s mess. He does want his own force bigger than the current military. Hitler had his. Then he turned against them when he became top dog.
          I don't expect Obama to turn on his unless a larger Muslim force falls under his control.
          I say no to any attempts of his to take or control guns and ammo.

  37. colorfulone profile image78
    colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

    Supposedly nearly all of the mass shootings can be linked together for the past 20 years with one other thing in common, besides guns. 
    http://www.naturalnews.com/050149_mass_ … drugs.html

    http://ssristories.org/ has archived news reports into categories by drug names, not by guns. 

    The big drug companies and government authorities know this is a real problem.  Right?

  38. Alternative Prime profile image59
    Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

    wrenchBiscuit is Absolutely CORRECT ~

    Exactly what I've articulated numerous times here and elsewhere ~ One Sentence, One Idea, One Context, One Meaning ~ UNAMBIGUOUSLY Clear & Concise English Language ~ A Well Regulated Militia such as the Armed Forces, and ONLY a Well Regulated Militia has the Right to Keep & Bear Arms ~ Pretty Simple Concept ~

    Republicans can "PRETEND" otherwise but the FACTs stubbornly remain ~

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
      wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It's fascinating that they can't seem to understand one sentence. Imagine how they must twist, mangle, and misinterpret an entire paragraph!

      1. Doug Cutler profile image65
        Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        No! No! No! Two sentences. Two different situations. 1. permission for each state to have a militia.
        2. Re-affirm the right of the people, you and me, the right to own. Well maybe not you, but the rest of us.

        1. Doug Cutler profile image65
          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          oops I am wrong. It is one sentence. Just the way they wrote back then.
          "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
          Still two different situations run together in one sentence. If you also notice the capitalization of State and People. Is this accepted grammar today" Just like: Shouldn't there be a period instead of a comma after State. And "the" start a new sentence if this were written today? I am no grammar Nazi.
          As for militias:  The militia was to be armed with equivalent rifles of the feds. Early 1800's.
          Under those conditions the militia of today should be armed with fully automatic "assault weapons"
          and perhaps shoulder RPGs and armor piercing rockets. Along with drones.

      2. Alternative Prime profile image59
        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        wrenchBiscuit ~

        It's UNREAL ~ The GOP "Circus of Bull" ~

        As you already know, Republicans MANGLE, TWIST, MIS-INTERPRET, PRETEND, and Simply IMAGINE things all day long on Fox Snooze, and you can even get an EAR full on CSPAN although they try to cloak it a little more for Television Purposes  ~

        The LEVEL of conservative republican BS has reached Critical Mass in the last Decade or so, when you're on the WRONG Side of EVERY Issue, what else is left but Lies & Fabrication?

    2. wilderness profile image89
      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Simple concept yes.  Too bad that one word, "only", isn't anywhere but your imagination.  Or that it was replaced with "the people" in the original, untwisted, document.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image59
        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        LOL smile ~ smile Too Bad for Republicans living in "Pretend Land" that one continuous sentence BEGINS with 4 easy to understand ENGLISH WORDS ~

        "A Well Regulated Militia"  ~

        NOT only is affiliation with a Militia a requirement to Keep & Bear Arms, but our founders insisted that it must be "A Well Regulated Militia" with Leaders, and Rules, and Regulations, and Restrictions, and Comprehensive Training, and Protocol, and Supervision, and Monitoring, and Structure etc etc ~ ALL those little inconvenient Organizational, Safety & Protective Measures which republicans Despise ~

        Simple Concept with Crystal Clear Language ~

        1. profile image0
          Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          It was clear in the years after we gained out independence from Britain that the meaning YOU insist upon wasn't what the founders intended, as there were people not part of a well regulated militia who had guns.  As others have stated (their words falling on deaf ears), the Supreme Court has gone with this interpretation that was confirmed, as I stated above, in the years after our independence.  Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is faulty....it rests upon the vain liberal intent to control Americans, not to promote safety.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image59
            Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            At this point in time, without Alien-Intervention, I am unable to READ MINDS and if my assumption is correct, neither can you nor any other Human ~

            My Interpretation is derived from simply reading the Amendment VERBATIM without PRETENDING what I THINK it says, or what I wish it said, or what I THINK it should say, or what AUGMENTATIONS it should have, or PRETENDING words within the passage do NOT Exist like most republicans do, or Praying that a comma or period or punctiation mark would Miraculously APPEAR Here or There, or CONVOLUTING & CONFUSING words found elsewhere with the Clear FACTS contained within ~

            SORRY Hxprof and all others, but this is EXACTLY how the Amendment begins within one Continuous Sentence ~ If the founders omitted the following, you might have a point, but once written, the ink dried and they liked it ~

            "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

            1. profile image0
              Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              There's no mind reading involved here, rather historical precedence and the words of the founders themselves in the years after the founding.

          2. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Truthfully though, what is it that you gun people are afraid of?

            Do you want the option to resort to your guns when too many liberals win elections fair and square? Is that your idea of being 'in control'?

          3. Doug Cutler profile image65
            Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            In the early 1800's nearly all households owned guns and safety was a part of that. States required militias to be formed and males between 16 or 18 and 45 or 60 to be trained. Older boys even carried to protect the others going to and from school. Somewhere we became lax and guns where put away and when found by the young became toys. Now there is also the drug thing as mentioned in several posts.

            The militia were to have arms that matched the arms of a run away Fed gov. or an invading force.

            If anything our arms capability needs to be greater. There still is the threat of an out of control Fed. Or a foreign force coming. In some cases may be here already waiting for the signal to do their thing.
            The regime is allowing Muslims in while doing nothing about letting the Christians and Jews that are being slaughtered by those Muslims. Where is the fairness? Part of the new non military force the pres. wants that is larger than our armed forces perhaps? The other parts coming from prisons and those willing to fire on citizens. The latter estimated to be 5 to 10% of the population.

            Those that say the 2nd was for another time are right and wrong. It is also needed in our time.
            When the ISIS, scourge or something similar, comes we need more women capable of combat. Then those invading will not stop at their 72 virgin place and will go directly to hell. Their belief not mine.
            Go Kurdish women freedom fighters!

            1. Alternative Prime profile image59
              Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              So Doug, you are asking ALL of us to believe your STORIES, FAIRYTALES & FABLES depicting what you imagine life was like WAY back in the  EARLY 1800's versus the VERBATIM words actually written into the 2cnd Amendment by the FOUNDERS ~ We don't even have an ACCURATE Real Life Portrait of George Washington, he could have been African American smile or Apache for all we know, but you can describe exactly what happened over 2 Centuries AGO?? ~

              If it's not incorporated into the Amendment, it means NOTHING ~

              Thanks for the EFFORT Doug smile, but I'll take the FOUNDERS Words instead  smile

              1. wilderness profile image89
                wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                LOL.  You mean like the bolded words here?

                A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people <that belong to the militia>to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                Those words mean NOTHING because they aren't actually in the amendment?  I'd have to agree!

                1. Alternative Prime profile image59
                  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  While those individuals wallowing in "Republican Pretend Land" have tried MIGHTILY  to make "A Well Regulated Militia" miraculously DISAPPEAR from the passage in question, I have NEVER attempted to Add or Subtract text, Alter or Modify the 2cnd Amendment in any way ~ I don't need to because I interpret it the ONLY way it can be ~ Once Again, Read it and WEEP ~ smile

                  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

                  As it CLEARLY States, a Pre-Condition to Keep & Bear Arms is AFFILIATION with the Military ~

                  If you HONESTLY Believe our Founders would ALLOW a bunch of Drunk Pilgrims to run around the Countryside with Loaded Guns in Hand, I have a nice big shiny "Liberty Bell" for sale ~ smile

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    The Cs aren't in pretend land anymore since Justice Scalia and his cohorts removed the words "A Well Regulated Militia" from the Amendment when they decided to insert the non-existent words "in self-defense" in their place. 

                    Having said that, Scalia and group didn't have to do diddly-squat because the justification for the right to possess guns by all Americans is implied in the original words. 

                    Since any and all men of a given state could become part of the state militia, then it is an easy stretch to say that "any and all men have a right to bear arms."; although even Scalia says that is a "limited" right.

                    The term "well-regulated" originates with at least Thomas Jefferson, and most likely others who lived through the Revolutionary war.  Why, because an "un-regulated" militia damn near cost America the Revolution; especially in Virginia when Jefferson was governor there.

            2. peoplepower73 profile image82
              peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

              You don't know what the hell you are talking about.  The Christians and Jews are not being slaughtered.  There is a three way civil war going on in the mid-east,  It's about the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds who are all fighting each other.  ISIS is made up of Sunni.  The Jews and the Palestinians are fighting because Israel has settled into the Palestinian territory. ISIS doesn't want to come here, they want the land to turn it into a Muslim Caliphate.

              1. Doug Cutler profile image65
                Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                What about Africa? dummy, Recent times I am talking here!

                In the past Iraq, and other area countries had large Jewish populations. Below is just one example.

                "When Hitler came to power in Germany, Goebbel’s agent arrived in Iraq and began to disseminate propaganda against the Jewish domination of government institutions and the economy. He incited the Muslims against the Jews, and in l935 Arab hatred found expression in crowded meetings which terminated in murderous pogroms."

                It still goes on today.

                Just heard on the radio that the ISIS wackos are killing the Christians of Mosul, Iraq as I type this.
                The Christian population was as high as 2 million. Now down to 180,000. Some 2,000 killed because they couldn't pay the tax recently in and around Mosul.

                It is you that has ignored what is happening. Have fun with you 72 virgins! Or perhaps you will get it by a female fighter and not stop at go, and go directly to hell.

        2. Doug Cutler profile image65
          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yes! So clear that A. Primate should realize that more than one Idea can be used in one sentence.
          Do you not know what phrases are? Each phrase in a sentence can have a new idea.

          The founders had to please everyone when they wrote and rewrote the 2nd. It was up to the individual
          states to make laws and militias. However: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A separate and distinct issue.

          "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

          For example: The above can be broken down into as much as four phrases. I am no grammar expert.
          Depending where you place the punctuation.

          I would make two sentences, so those that can not conceive of one sentence having more then one topic, can clearly see the two, or more, distinct topics.

          "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

          Also de-capitalized in three places. The commas I am not sure about.

          The custom of the time appeared to be the running of sentences together. Same with capitalization.

          I would like someone that is well versed in grammar to show what the 2nd would look like if written with today's grammar. I am a science-math-shop guy. Not the English-history-social studies type.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
            wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Please Doug, with just "one" word, tell us what a militia  is made out of; the main component. One word will suffice.

            1. Doug Cutler profile image65
              Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              There are two groups of people mentioned. Those in the militia, then those that are not.
              You have the same problem as A. Prime. Don't know the customs of the time the 2nd was penned.
              Can't conceive of the fact that more than one idea can be used in a single sentence.
              I can assume neither of you has done any research on the 2nd. The Federalist paper #46 explains some.
              The details of the 2nd was left to be determined by the states. No laws were to be made that limited gun ownership by those states. You both can't get this simple concept.

              The militia was to have weaponry equivalent to that of what a run away Fed gov. would have. Secondary,
              what an invading force would have. The non militia people could retain their arms. Simple as that.

              Yes! The 2nd is outdated. It needs to be brought up to the standard arms of say: ISIS, the Russians. Koreans, U.S. etc. OH NO! That means assault rifles. rockets, drones etc.

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                This is ridiculous, I can never allow civilians to obtain certain sorts of military ordinance, you want to 'take back' the country, you are going to do it in your fantasies, only... No, never, no!

                I am more concern about a run-away right wing reactionary class with their strident rhetoric,  cowardly resort to weapons, with a commensurate and paralyzing  fear of democracy, as practiced by 'the other'. We are reminded of  who they are and the ruse they will use to justify 'their revolution'.

                1. Doug Cutler profile image65
                  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, If those in Mosul had those cowardly weapons they could fight off the ISIS, ISIL or whatever you want to call those who are killing them. Same with the Jews. They finally did in Israel. Several times
                  Also, all the Christians being killed in Africa.

  39. Doug Cutler profile image65
    Doug Cutlerposted 9 years ago

    Can someone write the 2nd amendment with capitalization and punctuation as if it were written today?

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The top was the way the final draft was released and ratified. It was later changed to the lower.

    There are those that insist that gun ownership had to apply only to militias because that is what was mentioned first.

    I would write it in two sentences. There would be a period after state(no capitalization) "The" would be the start of a new sentence. Just so those who insist on only one right would see also the second as distinct and separate.

  40. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    It's pretty fruitless to argue with the pseudo- intellectual liberal !    Being a numbers guy ,  I have studied statistics a lot  , for one thing,  the leading causes of death in America .   NOT EVEN IN THE TOP TEN  are gun deaths listed .     While  suicide is  number ten  on some lists  ,   even gun deaths by suicide is far lower on the  actual lists .   

    But gas spouting  liberals fed by a hollywood  psychics  and liberal outlet   media statistics  would simply have everybody believing that - perhaps killings of innocents by police  would be #  !  ,   Oh and don't forget child killings  being maybe what # 2  , of  course  certainly  mercy killings of old people might be # 3.  And of course all  crimes where a gun is used  is certainly going to be cured by eliminating the second amendment !

    I think I'll stop arguing with liberals , I just read the leading cause of death in America is heart failure ,   No , it's not me I'm worried about , it's them !

  41. helenstuart profile image59
    helenstuartposted 9 years ago

    I hope I'm not repeating something someone else has already stated, but if I had read all the comments on this issue, my mental illness might have returned and who knows what would have happened then??? (That's a joke) Because the fact is that you are less likely to be harmed by a mentally ill person than another member of a population, unless you are talking about a young person with depression who is being treated with psychiatric drugs, especially ssri's. Selective Seritonin Reuptake Inhibitors. Or maybe SNRI's . I'm talking about drugs like Paxil, Prozac, Effexor, Zoloft, the list goes on and on. It is the common element in all the school shootings and theatre shootings and University shootings, etc, etc, etc. The package insert warns about potential suicidal and homicidal ideation and risk. So some Dr.s might add an "adjunct" like abilify to depressed patients. Abilify is not meant to be an adjunct for antidepressants. It is an antipsychotic. Dr.s are paid by pharmaceutical companies to put non psychotic patients on antipsychotics. The price is very dear to those who pay it. So shall we just delve into the minds of troubled people with drugs instead of guns and kill them that way because we are afraid of them? It is so ignorant and so freaking easy to say things like "we've got to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill!"  It's very scary to think that stone cold "sane" people can commit atrocious crimes with guns and walk away like nothing happened. We idealize "Amer'ca" and all her good people and blame the "crazies" for all that is wrong. I think maybe the sociopaths are at the wheel, yall. When you say the second ammendment was written for a different time, you're right. It was written for a time when a grizzly bear was probably your worst enemy, or a red coat, or a Native American seeking revenge. The time we live in is much more dangerous than that.

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
      wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You're right!. Furthermore, many of these "Founding Father ",  Archie Bunker types  know very little about U.S. History. What they know is gleaned from the old John Wayne movies that they watch on Turner Classic Movies, while they're waiting for the viagra to work that special magic. And that is really the crux of the whole problem. I think that if anyone conducted a serious study, they would find that gun advocates use guns to compensate for  little Johnny who never seemed to grow up. Yes, with the "big" gun in their hand, now they can feel like a real man; especially when they blow the head off of a squirrel at a distance of 100 yards, or when they kill a teenager while "standing their ground".

      1. justthemessenger profile image70
        justthemessengerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I have long suspected the power aspect represented by guns is why certain people are so drawn to them. That teen killer who called himself "standing his ground" is a perfect example of this.

  42. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12709059.png


    Liberals won't be happy until all our kids are jacked up on some image of a utopian society , where there are no evil doer's like gun owners , knives  or baseball bats ,  mean angry republicans and wild and crazy   sports-shooters at gun ranges , Let's turn "our swords to plowshares" , our gun ranges to soccer fields  or parade grounds -where the trophy for each  white pajama'ed child awaits her or him  or whatever child  , at the sidelines .

    Anyone ever consider the following ,  pot use has grown like  three times in the last fifteen years !  Combine that with the fact that  every "problem child " in America has his own medicine cabinet ? Heroin  use is growing through the roof  faster than the pot in your basement  stash .     Even prescription drug addictions  from pill friendly doctors is on a major  increase ?   
    Face fact's people American  youth and young "adult "  minds are probably , permanently chemically  altered .
    Add  that with the fact that  every pair of hands under twenty five has an electronic  device permanently attached to their forearms  where there used to be actual hands !    Yea ,    I can't figure why we don't all just love each other to pieces either .     

    I believe one of the largest issues in America  is how at a certain age these same  socially altered minds have to face the reality  of advancing into adulthood , Where if they  go to the theater and they don't play the movie YOU want ;  you can open up on them like a video  warrior !

    Control your mis-fitting  kids - I'll control my guns .

    1. peoplepower73 profile image82
      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You are making many, many assumptions and gross generalizations.  I saw something on T.V. last night that made a lot of sense and is also indisputable fact.  Almost everyone of those people who committed mass shootings, either stated or left a manifesto that said they were virgins and/or they felt women were not attracted to them.  This sounds bizarre, but you can check it out.  They felt they were misfits in our society.  It's because our media in every way shape and form bombards us with sex.  Just look at the commercials and it will become evident to you.

      We don't know these people even exists until they commit their heinous crimes.  It is their way of gaining notoriety in a world they feel they do not fit into.  I'm going to say it one more time, the second amendment gives them the right to bare arms just like everybody else.  Their weapon of choice is rapid fire, high capacity weapons.  How they obtain their weapons is another matter. 

      There have to be laws that prevent that from happening.  The gun people keeping saying there are over 2,000 laws on the books already and that is pure unadulterated bull shit. That was started by Reagan when he was shot and then picked up by the gun people to use as their mantra.  There are about 300, if you count all states.   Just read this.  I know you are going to say the Brookings Institute is just a liberal think tank.  But it is better than spouting propaganda. 

      http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publi … nbook4.pdf

      1. profile image0
        Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        We need those freakin' gun laws enforced, regardless of how many there are.  Anyoneone that owns a firearm must be held accountable for securing that firearm properly.  If the gun is stolen from that gunowner and a crime committed with it, and it can be proven that the gun was stolen because it wasn't properly secured, charges need to be brought against the gun owner!  No exceptions.

      2. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Great , Now these killings happen because guys  are still virgins !  Yeaa ,what will you guys come up with next !

  43. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    As I suspected, instead of one simple word you came roaring in on a straw horse! The only answer you could have given is one word, and that is "people". A militia is made up of "people".

    1. Doug Cutler profile image65
      Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes! You are right! "People" Two different groups in one sentence. How about that?
      You would like to control what I write with your silly request. One word!   "Nuts!"
      If you do not know what that is about, look it up! A clue: WWII, Battle of the Bulge.
      By the way. I have no problem with arming Indian women and other women to fight along with the Kurdsish women freedom fighters against the scourge that may be coming. Better to be prepared than not.

  44. Doug Cutler profile image65
    Doug Cutlerposted 9 years ago

    Well, I got me posting rights reinstated after 24 hrs.! I don't know if it was because of too many posts in a short time or what.?? When I asked via the help page someone said it could be for bickering, attacks or other rule breaking. Not likely, because the guy that likes to spam does so, and I get attacked and told how crazy I am by a couple here. So I am going too assume it was for too many posts.

    I haven't heard back from any about the 2nd should be two sentences. A recent post mentioned the (T).
    I don't know if they were referring to the capital "T" as being the beginning of a new sentence or something different.

    I agree that the libs have allowed their offspring way to many liberties. Deferment cards, drugs, political correctness, spoiling them, holding back the rod, everyone gets a trophy, accountability, on and on the
    list goes. These should bet barred from ownership anyway. Guns should only be allowed to those that show accountability. Sort of like drivers licenses. 

    Every white male in the early 1800's was required to serve unless they had a deferment. Now it would be all males. Women could volunteer. This would, maybe, clear the country of a lot of libs They would run off to Russia, Canada, etc. Let someone else deal with them.

    PrettyPanther: Are you sure you didn't mention those things? I had to remind one here of the things he claims he didn't say, several times. He has not responded back on that topic. Lots of other topics, yes.

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      To follow, I give the rightwinger far too much slack and that, sir, is going to cease. When you refer to military deferments look at your heroes, Donald Trump and so many of the rightwing chicken hawks that are all for war as long as they don't participate. These are the biggest cowards, because in addition to cowardice they add hypocrisy to the mix as well.

  45. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    What should be noted  in conclusion , is that the US. constitution was written at about an 8 -th grade level of reading comprehension  and  understanding  .   It was also written by and for a citizen lead  governing body   , NOT career  legislators ., It's really tragic that todays  reading and comprehending  levels , in many cases is far lower than that . 

    In fact , the O.P.  is simply a wishful thinking  for some utopian  society that isn't ever going to happen in America .   I believe that Bernie Sanders best represents this  failed ultra-left slide in visionary political reality .     And the masses follow blindly , much like  Germany did a couple of times ?

    It's doubtful  that the constitution is going anywhere soon though ,  maybe   anti-gun ,anti- constitution people could  all   " bone up" on your  8th grade reading skills.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image82
      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "What should be noted  in conclusion , is that the US. constitution was written at about an 8 -th grade level of reading comprehension  and  understanding  .   It was also written by and for a citizen lead  governing body   , NOT career  legislators ., It's really tragic that todays  reading and comprehending  levels , in many cases is far lower than that ." 

      Sure that's why it requires people who study constitutional law and the Supreme Court justices to make decisions based on interpretation.  You may be talking about yourself when it comes to reading comprehension skills.  Why not fire the supreme court and just let you do the judging?

      "In fact , the O.P.  is simply a wishful thinking  for some utopian  society that isn't ever going to happen in America .   I believe that Bernie Sanders best represents this  failed ultra-left slide in visionary political reality .     And the masses follow blindly , much like  Germany did a couple of times."

      This is just your opinion based on right wing propaganda that creates paranoia and justification for arming yourself to the teeth based on someday this is going to happen and you you will be ready, by god!

      "It's doubtful  that the constitution is going anywhere soon though ,  maybe   anti-gun ,anti- constitution people could  all   " bone up" on your  8th grade reading skills."


      You are right about the constitution not going anywhere, but it's not about what you think.  It's because it is a living document that can be amended to fit the times and circumstances for the majority.  That's how it works in a democracy.  Maybe you didn't learn that in the 8th grade.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        People power , except neither you nor the supreme  courts  get to CHANGE the   amendment's original intent ,    meaning or  basic language . Sorry ,   but that's not how it works .   

        Why don't you and your liberal cronies simply state the obvious . You don't like our constitution , you'd rather  a  direct and oppressive leadership like perhaps  China or North Korea where you can simply goose step without  any actual thought  or privileged participatory responsibility  .

        1. peoplepower73 profile image82
          peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

          ahorseback: Oh stop it, Nobody is talking about changing the original intent of the constitution.  What do you think ACT's, Bills, and Initiatives are ?  They are all ways of providing legislation without changing the constitution. 

          What do you think the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United that your fellow brethren of the right wing passed?  The ruling is corporations have personhood.  That means they have the right to free speech the same as a person.  That is why Super PACs allow the super-rich right wingers to contribute unlimited amounts of money to their favorite candidates.  The money can even come from foreign countries without any accountability.   

          That's what is wrong with this country right now.  They didn't change the constitution, they passed a law that says a corporation is the same as a person. All of these things must be scary to someone like you that just hunkers down with his firepower and waits for that tyranny to occur while criticizing the left.  The only thing is that the right wing could care less about you.  All they want is  your votes because they are beholden  to corporations that fund them.  Even your beloved NRA is a huge part of that scheme.

    2. Alternative Prime profile image59
      Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Written in 8th GRADE Language? Really? I would take issue with that assertion but if you are indeed correct, perhaps that explains why so MANY republicans Mis-Interpret and Mis-Understand the 2cnd Amendment which in REALITY, is a BAN on ARMS unless in the Military ~ smile ~

      I mean after all, remotely situated rural republicans who live FAR FAR away from civilization are typically the Human Breed which advocates “Home Schooling” ~ Just look at the PALIN Clan, if they are NOT Home Schooled I don't know what went WRONG there ~

      For the BENEFIT of republicans who seem to have difficulty in comprehension, maybe we should  RE-TRANSLATE a few copies of the Constitution to 2cnd GRADE English, a little less SOPHISTICATED, so they too can DISCOVER the TRUE meaning ~ smile ~

      1. profile image0
        Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Your argument has been so sufficiently refuted during this discussion that anymore of a reply than what I now provide is a waste of time and space.

      2. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Alternative prime , Your comments are  so  obviously , demonstratively  slanted to a left that YOU don't even comprehend them as noted in this rant  , so I won't even further respond to your  ultra- juvenile rants .   Maybe , although doubtful, you can" bone up " on reality and we can consider a dialog in the future .

        1. Doug Cutler profile image65
          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          As my kid's used to say: "My cinnamons exactly" I have even come up with a nick name "A. Primate."
          He sounds like the gun toting type. Only the left wing Obama, special, Nazi types will have guns. After they try to take all ours. I will keep my shotgun well oiled. The best weapon for close in combat.

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I agree , we are surrounded by those who neither understand the original constitutional intent , nor the fact that these rules of basic law are the guiding principles of the privilege of our very citizenship . How  naïve  ,  how preposterous .     I too await the day when they grow the basic strength to   rise up and march against our  way of life , instead of  whining about the injustice of  majority rule and participatory citizenship.    I do believe socialists are lazy by design - they want a singular dictatorial  governing ruler . Makes it easy for them I guess .

            1. Alternative Prime profile image59
              Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              While Republicans WASTE time "PRETENDING" to Decipher "INTENT", or SECRET Hidden Codes, I'll simply READ the CLEAR & Concise WORDS ~

              There really is NO Mystery if you Understand English ~ smile ~

              "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

              1. profile image0
                ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Okay I'll bite once ............"the right of the people to keep and  bare arms shall not be infringed" ,
                And just how is that not "all " people ,but only militia people as you have suggested  ?

                1. Alternative Prime profile image59
                  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  In "Republican PRETEND Land" you might be CORRECT, but unfortunately, NOT in the REAL World ~

                  LOL ~ YOU Conveniently Neglected to INCLUDE the PREVIOUS 12 Critically Important WORDS***** ~ What Happened?? ~ But then again, it's Par for the Course, OMITTING Words, PRETENDING Words don't exist etc, is a Natural Response from Republicans ~

                  I'm not going to WASTE precious time to Re-Lit this Crystal Clear Passage again, ahorseback, READ it as you will and Pretend******

                2. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12715599.jpg
                  It's really easy to figure out. It's called "reading comprehension". Of course "the people" is referring to the militia. If we follow your logic, then " all of the people" necessarily  must also mean 5 year old kids, people who are legally insane, and citizens who are enemies of the state! The amendment doesn't clarify one way or another in these cases since it assumes the reader would have at least a little common sense.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    Federalist No. 46
                    Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
                    James Madison

  46. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    Those words may apply to cavemen, but they do not apply today. Edward Snowden is one of the greatest patriots and humanitarians of the 21st century. How many Americans stood by him? He had to seek asylum in Russia! Where are all the patriots? Why didn't they rally to his aid? Why? Because they are cowards; Arm Chair Warriors. Viagra may help has beens, but there is no pill that will give a man courage. If the people  are too cowardly and apathetic to help Ed Snowden, they certainly won't have the pluck to stand together against tanks,drones, and government forces. Dream on dreamers!

    1. Doug Cutler profile image65
      Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What are we supposed to do? Have a revolt with the weapons you and A, Primate are trying to take?
      Snowden appears to be the coward, just like all those sissies in 1960's 70's, running behind Putin's bare chest. Have you gone bonkers, bananas or Biscuits?

      I have no doubt that the people have ways to deal with those tanks,drones, and government forces.
      You just answered the reason we need those weapons. A tyrannic gov.! Weapons equal to that of the advisory.

      I suspect there will be a large number of the military that will throw in with the freedom fighters. Why do you think Obama wants a force bigger than the present armed forces? Consisting of convicts, illegals and the roughly 10% of U.S. citizens that will pull the trigger on the rest. Does the words "Chicago thugs" mean anything to you.

  47. TheHealthGuy LM profile image78
    TheHealthGuy LMposted 9 years ago

    Yes You are absolutely right. The 2nd Amendment is resposible for all the mass killings. I am willing to bet it even caused that hurricane in Mexico. People with your mentallity should never be allowed to vote let alone breed :-)

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      or ever ever ever ever ever touch a single gun EVER!

  48. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12715697.jpg
    LOL! That's my favorite thing about Obama. All of the racists have had to live in a country ruled by a black man with a Muslim name for 8 years! I would have never dreamed it could get this good in 1977. This even tops "Custers Last Stand". Face it Doug: We are already living under the oppression of  tyranny. Have been since 1913. Nobody's done a damn thing about it. That kills your theory of solidarity.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      because we are a basically civilized trusting people, like the Indians were
      at first...

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
        wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Really? We didn't wait for nearly 250 years before we started killing the colonialist invaders. What are the Americans waiting for?

        1. Doug Cutler profile image65
          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          What happened to your rant about love, Jesus, turning the cheek? You also are a hypocrite. Did those love drugs wear off? Most of those mass killings were the fault of you libs drugging up people instead of safer methods.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
            wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12715727.jpg

            I was simply stating facts Doug. Furthermore, the world is not as black and white as many would like to believe.Turning the other cheek is the movement of a superior intellect. My own personal shortcomings have no affect on the truth. And in spite of my carnal nature, I do recognize the truth. God knows I have a weakness for full figured women who like to talk dirty. God also knows I celebrate the underdog when he is victorious over his oppressor. It is absurd to think that God would expect to just add water and then voila; we ourselves become instant gods! We are only expected to grow. Look at me Doug, I am growing, and soon I will tower above them all!

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
              Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              HUH????????

              1. Doug Cutler profile image65
                Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                My reaction too! Appears he is messing with us or truly has a split personality. Jekyll likes the fat girls, Jesus, love, etc.  Hyde, (Biscuits) is anti-white, anti- Jewish, anti- Christian. And likes the gun toting hottie. As I do. On one hand he is very clever and amusing. The other has its problems.

            2. Doug Cutler profile image65
              Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              No! In the end all surviving spirits, save the original God, in the three forms we know of, will be equal.
              It may take many more life times for some. And the worst may be dissolved and purified and new spirits made.
              I believe we have a God given right to protect ourselves. Jesus and his types are special cases. They know life here is temporary and it is the after life that is much more important.
              How do you know what you were in past lives You very well could have been one of those evil Indian slayers. I must have been someone bad too because of the problems I have experienced as opposed to many others. Karma!

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Even Jesus advised some of his disciples to carry swords!

                ~ are swords okay, guys?

                1. Doug Cutler profile image65
                  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Not if you are near perfect
                  "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (NIV)
                  The reason for the sword may be due to some prophecy from the old testament.
                  People may say. "I knew a soldier, or other, who slayed someone with a sword. And they died by some other method." Karma! In another life they will be killed by some weapon. Reincarnation is hinted at here, as well as other places.

                  In our non perfect condition we use weapons for defense. I believe God accepts this. He would prefer we didn't I suspect. We still have a long way to go.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                    God knows quite well we are here to get out of here.
                    There will always be a need for self-protection against the CRAZIES here in the world!
                    Darn it!
                    The real solution is to GET OUT OF HERE!

                    as in Beam Me Up!

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          We have ways to change things without guns, right?
               We keep hoping and trying
          I guess.

          Also, What can you do when the tyranny or its cause is not apparent
          When you're in the system and enjoying it to some extent, you just go with the flow. When will it get bad enough is the question, I suppose.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
            wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12715825.jpg
            You just identified the problem. Everybody wants to go with the flow. That's why Doug got put in the penalty box recently. Obviously someone was offended by an honest opinion. That's not to say that I would invite him over for dinner, but if I expect to have freedom of speech then others must have it as well. The censorship that goes on in these forums is proof of how the Constitution is more and more becoming a worthless document; nothing but a paper tiger. We are not supposed to upset the flow with harsh words, or a differing opinion .

            The Second Amendment is truly outdated. I understand completely the concerns expressed on all sides about self-defense. Of course I do. I'm sitting here with a toothache that I've had for  3 days. How could I not empathize with anyone who seeks protection from  pain and suffering? But those days are gone. A tyrannical government won't necessarily come after the citizenry with guns. Most likely they would come with chemical, or biological agents. Just look how successful they were with smallpox, and that was 500 years ago! An armed militia would be defenseless against such measures.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
              Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              the problem is the addiction of the powerful to their own power.
              The only check is this:
                Their own hearts.

              Until they get one, we need …  swords.
              and stuff

    2. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      In the face of this reality, I guess the rightwinger thinks that he or she is well on their way to 'taking the country back", do you think?

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image68
        wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        The "browning" of America was Archie Bunkers biggest nightmare. Now it is all coming true. The racists are circling the wagons, but it's a little too late. They cling to the Second Amendment and a bunch of dead men in wigs as if that will save them from the inevitable. Good Luck Archie!

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Save them from the inevitable? It won't....

        2. gmwilliams profile image83
          gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, there is a darkening or at least a browning of America.  America is no longer a homogenous male Caucasian nation.  It is becoming more diversified which is good but it still have a long way to go.  America society & culture has to really WALK that WALK in terms of educational and socioeconomic quality for all.   It is disheartening, even threatening for some Caucasians to see non-Caucasians in powerful and influential positions.  It is upsetting to their old order. 

          America is going to have a NEW ORDER .  A New Order of total inclusivity of all American people.  Many of the old guard are becoming more virulent and vehement in their stances because their way of life is dying out.  As history has proven ad infinitum, people become more virulent when they see their particular end is near.  Case in point, the Nazis in Germany during World War 2 realized that they were losing the war and become more set to exterminate the Jews.  One would logically think that if the war was lost, it would be pointless, even detrimental to exterminate people.  But the Nazis refuse to think that day, they become even more hellbent in exterminating the Jews.  The same thing but on a lesser scale is happening to some segments of Caucasian America.  America is becoming browner and THAT does not set well with SOME people.  Continue the discussion!

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            If inclusiveness is the New Order then the reactionary needs to be afraid. otherwise America becomes and comes closer to being what it should be.

            Hitler in disgust with the German people for not obtaining the victory instituted the scortched earth policy

            Only the reactionaries are terrorified, but that is what the GOP has become, so they represent a lot of upset people.

            Aye, continue the discussion.....

            1. gmwilliams profile image83
              gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Credence2, exactly.  Many reactionaries and old orderlies are becoming quite upset.  Oh no they wail what are they are going to do.  They cannot psychologically digest that American is evolving into a truer multicultural, multiethnic, multigender, and multiracial civilization and society.  People are evolving beyond their particular tribalism and into becoming universalist in scope.  The old paradigm of tribal division is becoming increasingly outmoded, even toxically harmful to the body Americana. Of course, the diehards will revolt i.e. the Tea Parties and other extreme Republicans but most people will evolve and laugh at this period in the future.   It is now truly the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            so you think. Those who love God no matter what age DO NOT THINK THIS WAY!

            BTW we have ALWAYS been a MELTING POT!

  49. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 9 years ago

    Doug, you reference "Chicago Thugs", a codeword is it not? You imply that the Black community is training their children to kill people at 6. Only rightwing gun nuts introduce young chidren to firearms.

    To KH, So, a 5 year old child has the judgment of an adult when a lethal weapon is involved? I just don't know what is going on here?

    1. Doug Cutler profile image65
      Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know if you know about the gangs in Chicago in the 20's? White gangsters forcing store owners to pay a protection fee. If they didn't bad things happened to them. Or the Russian mafia? Those people are called thugs. Maybe it means some code word to you. I don't know? Or union members that beat up and damage property of those that oppose them. Have you never heard of union thugs? Or maybe you thought they were talking about just the black ones. Thugs has nothing to do with race. It is their actions.

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, am aware of Chicago during the 1920's, that was a pretty smooth exit for you. I have a hard time believing that you were refering to mob activity 90 years ago. That term Chicago Thugs, when commonly used today has had a racial connotation. If I was in error, I apologize.

        1. Doug Cutler profile image65
          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          The term thug is still alive and well, meaning any one or group that uses unlawful force on another.
          I'm sure I heard it used when Wisconsin's governor and others were attacked by disgruntled union members. Most of those being white. Didn't count how many of each race there was.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      ~ didn't you when you were five? My brothers and I did… of course they were toy guns. But that is how children practice: by playing.

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Did you not know that the issue is not toy guns but the real thing?

        1. Doug Cutler profile image65
          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          5 year olds taught to use guns  Do a search on this term. You will find a lot of examples of just what I said. I would not give a gun to just any 5 year old. And not an automatic. I suspect a lot of countries teach their young at that early of an age how to use, shoot and be responsible. It not for everyone.

  50. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12716175.jpg

    The original  citizen soldier ,   he wasn't army , navy, marine ,  there was no distinction between man and soldier , they were  all soldiers . Important ,THERE WAS NO MALITIA ,  what there  were  was farmers , shoe makers ,  sail -makers, saw mill workers  ,   pig farmers and  loggers . Stevedores and freight haulers   .

    The idea that there was a distinction between militia and  a farmer is ludicrous ! That  is exactly where "WE THE PEOPLE " actually came from . We were not loaded down with career politicians either ! They were citizen leaders  and cow farmers ,  congressmen and  news paper men . 

    There was only ONE  ,  " We the people" , unlike todays   masses of ingrates .

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)