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?
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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 ~
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.
Well, it's quite obvious where your "Superior Understanding" & "Command of the English" language permeates from ---->
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 ~
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.
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.
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 ~
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.
(Not to mention our bare arms.)
And your credibility just took a major hit. Name calling? Really?
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.
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?
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".
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 ~
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.
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" ~
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.
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 ~
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.
"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.
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 ~
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 !
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 ~
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
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.
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 !
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?
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.
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.
You have so much more patience than I do. I gave up on this issue. Hats off to you.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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'.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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").
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.
Take a look at the highest crime stat cities in America with minority populations lately ?
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."
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 .
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.
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.
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 ?
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..
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's been my experience; that God only helps those that do the work themselves.
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.
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?
Absolutely! When you subdue a man physically, there is always a thought or intention that precedes the action. That thought occurs within an electrical field. 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. This is a natural connection that exists between all forms of energy; especially within the same species.
What is the strength of these brainwaves measured at, what is the attenuation rate in atmosphere and what is the minimum to strongly affect a receiver?
Most important, what kind of detector is used to make these measurements?
What is the point of such questions? How many people do you think can explain how a cell phone works, or a radio transmission? Most people can't explain the inner workings of an electric toothbrush!
But it really doesn't matter. They listen to the radio, they talk on the phone, and they brush their teeth! What I am talking about can be easily proven. All someone has to do is to research the subject, and then start learning how to do it. Once an individual learns how to do it, they will see the proof for themselves.There is no better proof. I have been doing this for nearly 50 years. No one is going to learn how to do this overnight.
You asked previously: "Are you saying that if you pretend and "visualize" enough that God will control minds for you?" And you followed with: "Sorry, but you can visualize a god all you want but that won't bring it into being. Nor will visualizing anything else, either."
Your response leaves me to wonder if it is a matter of reading comprehension, a matter of not taking the time to read, or simply a matter of being argumentative, simply for the sake of argument.
God is not in my employ. I do not dictate to God. It is absurd to think that God is a Genie who is ever willing to satisfy my wishes and desires. It is also absurd to expect that God is anything but all that ever was and will be! Prayer is not a command. Prayer is humbling yourself before God, and the universe, and expressing your humanity. Furthermore, I never suggested that we can visualize God. How ridiculous! God simply is. We visualize our intention. But like any other weapon we might choose, the weapon of prayer is a formidable weapon, but ultimately it is God's will that is done. As far as proving God exists, that is easy.
If God did not exist your heart would not be beating in your chest. In fact, you would have never drawn a breath, as you would have never been born. Everything in the world of man is created by a man. A can of Coca Cola was created by a man, just as an automobile was created by a man. There is no commodity or modern convenience that just fell out of the sky ready for us to consume and enjoy! From this we can deduce that the human being, and all that is above and below us was necessarily created by an intelligence far greater than any mortal man can conceive. The Natural Law tells us that for everything created there must first be a creator. This may lead to an infinite loop, but only because the human does not have the mental capacity to comprehend a timeless eternity. Among intelligent people, this is only common sense.
There is plenty of evidence that can be found that supports my position. Much of it can be found through the study of Quantum Physics. But there are many of us who simply "know", and we don't require "proof" because we already "know". For instance, before Joan Rivers outed Michelle Obama and revealed that Michelle is a transexual, I already knew it! I knew she was a transexual when I first looked at her. Didn't you?
God gave man free will. Even the bad ones. Prayer may get you out of a bad situation. If a person wants to do bad they will. If they want to change then prayer will help. Their own prayers and and from others.
So did Michell give birth to the two girls before becoming a transsexual or did they adopt? If Michell started out a male then it is certain they adopted. I read rumors that Barack was a gay in school.
While we are on Barack. Why doesn't he do something about all the gun deaths in his home town of Chicago? One of the most controlled places in the U.S. Then maybe he can talk about the rest of us.
Poor Obama.
Right now he needs our
^ Prayers! ^
I ask to find out whether your claims are true or not. You tend to make a lot of claims, but never seem able to back them up, and this one is no different.
Here, you claim something that is extremely doubtful, and as proof you offer that "I've been doing it for years". You don't test the veracity of your conclusions, and expect others to do the same - to simply accept the conclusion, that you can exert mind control over others with nothing but your own mind, without ever testing it.
While that may be fine for you, as you don't really care if it's true or not, it isn't fine for others. They don't care to live in a pretend world of fantasy, preferring reality whether it hurts or not.
You also bounce back and forth between prayer being a part of this "visualization" process, and the god you believe in, and it being a force of your own mind. This is a problem as you obviously don't actually know anything about it, leaving to a god on the one hand while the other maintains no god is necessary.
Your "proof" of a god is sadly lacking. Merely making a statement that we wouldn't exist without one is proof of your own gullibility and ignorance (you do not know all that is possible, after all, though you claim to).
Your "deduction" is the same; a false logic that neither contains a true premise OR correct use of the deduction process. Even the Natural Law you quote is a creation of your own mind without being real - there IS no such Law no matter how much you might like there to be.
It is not uncommon for a man to dismiss what he cannot comprehend. I am not moved by your pitiful attempt to ridicule and discredit. Some men choose to live in darkness, while others have no choice. In either case it is no cause for anger, or celebration. God smiled on me the day I was born, and bestowed upon me the gift of sound and vision. There are many of my subordinates who envy my good fortune. And so, I cannot blame them for this. Many of them will go to prestigious universities, and spend great amounts of time and money, but only to find that upon graduation, they are still dumb as an ox that has been kicked twice in the head! Your hateful words cannot penetrate, tear down, nor even fracture the perimeter of my world. They only serve to fortify the wall you have built around your own. Goodbye!
Of course you're not moved! You have your belief (and don't wish to change it) - nothing wrong with that.
The problem arises when you present your belief as fact, repeatedly stating that you have proof of it's veracity, but then are unable to show anything more that irrelevant statements of what you believe. That does a great disservice to the listener and severely damages your credibility as well. When you exhibit "proof" as being a statement that we know God exists because we know God exists it really leaves the reader a little confused as to your ability to reason logically.
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?
LOL, guys!
-most come home and watch TV! Not me!
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 !
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 .
"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.)
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.
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?
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 ?
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?
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!!
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?)
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 ~
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?
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 ~
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?
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? ~
This BAD A$$ GUN was Banned in US! But, I would like this gun in MY purse! How come i cannot have it? ?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/worlds-sma … ers-fears/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.!
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?
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!"
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 .
LOL! I've never seen this explained so perfectly and so hillariously!
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 !
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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??
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.
I never expect much in response to reasonable posts and am not ever disappointed.
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.
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.
The last comment was meant for response to W. Biscuit not ahorse. Accidents happen.
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.
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.
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 ~
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?
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.
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!
Might point out that he was born here, just as the indians were. An "indigenous", if you will.
They should have cooperated with the people who were raping them, killing them, and stealing their land? Who does that besides Pollyanna Kathryn? What government do you know of that peacefully cooperate's with people who threaten their interests, both foreign and domestic? The Europeans were the aggressors, as it is well known that they Invaded this continent, not vice versa. And no Mr. wilderness, George Washington, you , and tens of millions of Americans are not Indigenous. When you look at the entire definition of the word , it includes the word "first".
You are perverting the definition by selectively omitting a key word. And no, it does not matter who may have been here before the Lakota, Pequot,Mapuche, Haudenosuanee, Powhatan, Aniyunwiya, or the Mexica. These and hundreds of other nations preceded the European by thousands of years. They were the first , and they are the Indigenous. It is not uncommon for the great,great,grandson of a a thief to claim stolen property as his own. He may not be culpable for the crime when it was committed. But he is certainly accountable for ignoring the truth; a truth that speaks of an American prosperity that was bought and paid for with the blood of my people.It is no wonder that a majority on this Forum worship, and honor, a constitutional amendment that gives them the right to bear arms, to kill, and to continue in the footsteps of their forefathers.
Well, that leaves out all the modern indians then, too, doesn't it? As none of them were the original settlers of the Americas - "your people" are no more the "first" than I or my grandparents were. They, all of them, are thieves and usurpers of the "first" peoples on this continent and their descendants.
Or, if you really want to be accurate, we are ALL descendants of the "first" people. The ones migrating out of Africa, you know, that eventually moved to cover the earth. Your thinly veiled racism does not change that fact.
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.
I am very focused. Furthermore, I have only been responding to fictional statements that you and others have made concerning American History. But regardless, this is all relevant because the gun violence that you are commiserating about in this Forum is directly related to a violent past. There is no escaping it. Each mass shooting and killing; each incident of white on white violence and mayhem, only serves to reinforce the veracity of my argument. And my argument is summarized as follows:
"Evil can only beget evil, and goodness can only bring forth more goodness".
This only conforms to the law of God, and the Natural Law of Nature. What we see happening in the streets today are what the Christians refer to as "the wages of sin".
Who has coveted and murdered to take possession of great wealth, and whose sons and daughters have now turned against them? It is not the Indigenous; we who were tortured,murdered, and driven into exile, that you must now fear. We are not coming after you. Neither is it the black man you must fear; the man who was held in bondage, and beaten like a pack animal for over 400 years. No, the black man is not coming after you. The black man collectively has turned the other cheek. The Indigenous man has also turned the other cheek. We have all stepped aside . And so, the power and the wrath of God are now clearly evident. We see that evil has turned on itself, just as a cancer will begin to devour the host that has given it life. The expressions here are expressions of fear. But good men do not fear for the safety of themselves , or even their children. What do they have to fear? In life or in death, God has provided for us. To live in fear is to deny the mercy, the wisdom, and the will of God.
You sound very much like your friend Ward Churchill , anyone that hasn't listen to the one sided , fact lacking data base accounts of half truth rhetoric of a wanna be A.I.M.warrior spouting off like a machine gun . Really should ! Simply to understand the hate filled lies and generalities that come from those much like yourself .
Never do we see in ANY of the rhetorical spin about American Indian , colonialist wars , manifest destiny , an ounce of consideration of how the "Living Atmosphere , Quality of life , of the Times " affected the entire war situation . Imagine , bounties on the heads of women , children , men . Put forth by the British colonialist's AND the French too, against whites or Indians !
ONE HAS TO LOVE THE WAY THAT TRUTH , REALITY AND HONESTY IS TOTALLY IGNORED IN AMERICAN HISTORY !
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.
{1} https://web.archive.org/web/20061012154 … bc3882c0c6
See The American Revolution
{2} http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent … th_century
Excellent bit of information. Thanks for sharing.
Your verbose and pitiful narrative has no impact, since your so-called patriots had no purpose here other than to steal and possess as much land and resources as they could. They moved across the land like a swarm of hungry, insatiable locusts.The very fact that the colonialists were here in the first place illustrates an immoral intent; an evil motivation that was subsequently followed by the criminal acts of greedy land barons like Washington. Let it be known that there are no innocents in an aggressive and occupying force. It is no wonder that the U.S. supports the colonialist expansion of Zionism in the Middle East.
When considering Zionism and American Imperialism, it is hard to determine where one ends and the other begins.The Christian Bible even reveals that it was an element of the Jewish community that crucified Jesus. It appears that those who have for millennia sought to subjugate and rule the world, will neutralize any threat to their global ambitions. The mass killings and escalation of white on white violence should be seen for what it truly is: a symptom of evil. It is like a nerve in the human body reacting to the pain and the infection. And like any disease, if not properly treated , the host will succumb to the disease and die. The current Second Amendment fervor is only gasoline being thrown upon the decadent remains of an unholy dream; a spasmodic phantasm that has lingered upon it's deathbed for over 200 years.
You're right - your verbose and pitiful narrative has no impact. A clear case of "Don't confuse me with facts; my mind is made up". Amazing what a very selective choosing of historical facts can "prove", isn't it? At least until someone comes up with the whole story!
But to go on with such drivel - "The very fact that the colonialists were here in the first place illustrates an immoral intent; an evil motivation that was subsequently followed by the criminal acts of greedy land barons like Washington" while conveniently ignoring that those same "colonialists" were mostly born here and had been for many generations doesn't do much for your case. Neither does pretending that the Indians in question weren't allied with the British or that they were all murdered by Washington's forces.
Amazing the lengths a rationalizing mind will go to in order to maintain it's illusions in favor of rational thought and fact, isn't it? But your verbose and pitiful narrative simply loses all impact when presented with "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". You could do far worse than to learn from has happened here; that to present a grossly slanted and racist agenda destroys what credibility you might have had otherwise.
LOL wilderness ~
In REALITY, wrenchBiscuit is much Closer to the TRUTH than any Backward Republican around here is ~
Talk about Artificially ManuFACTuring FACTS ~ How about this S*T*R*E*T*C*H of the Republican Delusional IMAGINATION ~ Some CONservatives Actually believe this Unambiguous Sentence is directly related to "TYRANNY" when in REALITY, it's a BAN on Arms unless affiliated with a Militia such as the Armed Forces ~
"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 word "Tyranny" is NOT present nor accounted for, the word isn't even located less than a LIGHT YEAR away from this passage, yet some Lunk-Head Republicans continue to "PRETEND" this word is secretly hidden somewhere within ~ Unbelievable
Read Federalist Paper #46. This is what the 2nd was based on.
"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"
This was to counter any federal or foreign attempts to take over a state. And that federal army was to be limited to a force much smaller than the smallest state 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."
So the word tyranny was used.
No where is there any mention of citizens not allowed to own guns. There isn't even mention of non citizens not allowed.
Doug Cutler ~
Despite your Attempted SPIN & Confusion Tactics, the 2cnd Amendment is Clear & Concise ~ NO mention of "Tyranny" but very EXPLICIT with regard to WHO has the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and unfortunately for your "Republican Pretend-Land", scenario, that exclusive Right was Reserved & Extended to Militia Personnel ONLY for Protection against another Foreign Enemy ~
Where is the phrase "To Protect the People from Tyranny"?? Pretty simple to insert into the Amendment but it was NOT because it was NOT the Drafters INTENT ~
Read Federalist Paper #46 then come back with your drivel.
The individual states hold the rights of gun ownership. Not some power hungry president. Even the word citizen was used before we became a country.
citizen:
1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
3. A civilian.
4. A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place:
I think # 3 and 4 apply here
Here, I have delivered the death blow that obliterates all of the nonsensical arguments concerning the Second Amendment, and the imagined right of an individual to bear arms. Let it be known that we only have the right to bear the two arms that we were born with. I do not know why I am superior, but in this cruel world, I have found it to be a heavy burden.
The amendment states very clearly:
"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"
We must not forget that most, if not all Judges started out as lawyers. Now, we must also not forget that with few exceptions, a majority of lawyers are professional liars, and entertainers. They spend years learning how to manipulate the law to their advantage, with money and power being their primary concern.
Here is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that was decided on June 26, 2008. This ruling proves that without a doubt, the American people are allowing incompetent Judges to rule over them; Judges who are better qualified to strip, mop, and wax floors. Here is the ruling:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
What a joke! The ruling says: "... such as self-defense within the home". How about also adding "on the way to the flea market" or "when your cruising for Korean hookers on a Friday night". It is amazing how the interpretation has been embellished in this ruling.
Now let's focus on the lawyer-speak, and mumbo jumbo:
"...prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause..."
Behold the trickery that is rampant throughout the Justice System. To justify their ruling, the Justices have pointed out, and focused our attention on the second portion of the amendment, noting that this portion is the "operative clause". And? So what? This is clearly a diversionary tactic. Whether or not the prefatory clause expands or limits the operative clause, has nothing whatsoever to do with interpreting the Second Amendment, because it does neither; as indicated!
We can see through this B.S. simply by using our common sense. The Second Amendment has been carefully worded. The two parts of the sentence constitute a whole, or the expression of a single idea. The operative clause only exists to support the prefactory clause. If the operative clause was meant to stand on it's own, then the prefactory clause serves no purpose. If this ridiculous ruling had any basis in reality, the amendment would simply read: "
" The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
See how easy that is? My wording of the amendment is very clear, and leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what I am trying to say. The Second Amendment could have easily been written this way, but it wasn't. Why? Because this is not what they are trying to say! If they were speaking of individual rights they would have simply said so! We must understand that a militia is "the people", and nothing but "the people".And so we can see what they really mean by replacing the word "people" with "militia".
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia (people) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
This amendment in no way shape or form says anything about individual gun ownership, tyranny, etc.. These things are not even implied. But the same people who have perverted morality in order to justify the rape, murder, and dispossession of my people, are the same individual scholars who use their overactive, yet limited imaginations, in an attempt to rewrite the Constitution.
Both of you are one trick ponies. Again : The first line was to give permission to the states to have a militia. The 2nd line said the people are allowed to keep their guns. In addition to the militia.
This is all spelled out in Federalist Paper #46. This predated the 2nd.
The Federalist Papers consist of eighty-five letters written to newspapers in the late 1780s to urge ratification of the U.S. Constitution. With the Constitution needing approval from nine of thirteen states, the press was inundated with letters about the controversial document. Celebrated statesmen Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay weighed in with a series of essays under the pseudonym “Publius,” arguing that the proposed system would preserve the Union and empower the federal government to act firmly and coherently in the national interest. These articles, written in the spirit both of propaganda and of logical argument, were published in book form as The Federalist in 1788.
I read the Federalist Paper #46 and at the very end, it mentions tyranny to protect the states from incursion by European countries. It is interesting, even though, it was mentioned by the paper, the word Tyranny never made it into the 2nd amendment, nor did it make it into the constitution.
I have read almost every comment in this forum as they were posted and it is still my belief that the 2nd amendment was written for another time, and its wording is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. The other nine amendments are not subject to the same type of interpretation because they do not involve a tool, as ahorseback and wilderness would say. That tool in 1791 was a flintlock musket for God's sake.
Here is a summary of the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Notice that they are as relevant today as they were in 1791, except for the 2nd amendment, because it was about baring arms from that period and having a militia from that period. And it was still necessary for people to defend themselves in a fledgling country that for the most part was very rural.
Amendment 1 The people are allowed to practice any religion, press, speak freely, assembly, and petition...still relevant
Amendment 2 You can bare arms...Arms in 1791 were flintlock muskets. Does not serve the country well because of the modernity of arms and modern geopolitical circumstances. It only provides a law for infringement of the right. Allows everybody to bear arms.
Amendment 3 Soldiers can not stay in people house's without their consent...still relevant
Amendment 4 The government cannot just come into people's house and search and take their belongings without a search warrant...still relevant
Amendment 5 Sets out rules for how people are sentenced for the crime by the Grand Jury. Due process of law-going through the steps of legal proceedings. Prohibits double jeopardy- you cant be tried twice for the same crime until there is new evidence.
Amendment 6 In all criminal trials, you have the right to a speedy and impartial trial. And the criminal should be informed about their charges. You have the right to obtain witnesses. You have the right to get a lawyer even if you cannot afford it...still relevant
Amendment 7 Trial by jury in certain civil cases (non-criminal cases)...still relevant
Amendment 8 Prohibits excessive fines or bans. Prohibits cruel and unusual punishment...still relevant
Amendment 9 the rights not specifically granted to the people in the Bill of Rights, still belong to the people...still relevant
Amendment 10 limits the powers of the federal government to those powers listed in the Constitution...still relevant
I know this is an exercise in futility. I am not going to convince a single gun person, but maybe, I can turn on some lights. You see the 2nd amendment provides no laws other than a violation of infringement of the right for everybody to bear arms. Laws for gun accountability have to come from outside the 2nd amendment. Gun Control is a bad word for conservatives and gun people. Every time they hear it, they think the federal government is going to take away their guns. But what we need is gun accountability. I will talk about that in my next post.
James Madison is referring to a militia: NOT INDIVIDUALS
"...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.-."
Please show us where it is "spelled out" as I could not find it.
As I already stated, the second amendment is one complete single idea. You are separating it to make it say what you want it to say. The militia "is" the people the amendment is referring too. But be of good cheer! The Judge in the 2008 decision agrees with you.
Why do you keep putting yourself in the same corner? You comment:
"...conveniently ignoring that those same "colonialists" were mostly born here and had been for many generations doesn't do much for your case."
Oh really? I'm glad you brought that up. Your patriotic rhetoric on this thread, as well as others, can only lead one to believe that along with Archie Bunker, and millions of other Americans, you are opposed to the children of "illegal" aliens being granted citizenship and receiving benefits. But if you are innocent, and have been falsely accused, then my commentary is only directed at those for whom it does apply.
Americans cannot have it both ways. On one hand , the racist will argue that Euro-Americans born on this continent during the time of Washington were, by that very fact, entitled to possess the property of the Indigenous; property that had previously been stolen by their predecessors. But on the other hand, the racist will conclude that the children born to "illegal" immigrants have no right to be here, or to possess any property, because their parents came without permission, or legal documents. The racist maintains that the illegal immigrants are in effect, stealing jobs and resources.
I do not agree with this racist propaganda. But for the sake of argument: Whether we are stealing jobs and resources, or whether we are stealing land. Are we not stealing just the same? Can we conclude that stealing land is a lesser evil than stealing jobs and resources? Can we in good conscience deny to a brown American today, what is considered the birthright of every white American who has been born since 1776?
I digress: Let me remind the ignorant, and the uneducated, that a Mexican can also be considered an American, whether he lives in the United States or not. After all, this continent is called America.
And so I continue with sound reason, and righteous indignation : Where are the legal documents that gave Columbus the right to be here? Where are the legal documents that granted the Pilgrims the right to bring their perverse form of Christianity to the New World? Where are the legal documents that granted Washington the right to defy the British Crown, and found a nation upon the bones of my ancestors?
Of course, there are no documents. The Europeans were looking for a better life, and so, without the permission of the First Nations, they came. The people south of the border are also looking for a better life, and so, without the permission of the U.S. government, they too have come. Only a racist can make a distinction between the two. Only a racist can conclude that the life, liberty, and happiness of a white American, whether in 1776 or the present, was, or is any more important than the life, liberty, and happiness of my ancestors, or my people who have been herded onto reservations, or my brothers and sisters south of the border today. After all of the evil works that have been done in the name of progress, only a racist can justify Manifest Destiny, and place the white American on the moral high ground.
White on white violence continues to escalate. White Americans are killing each other. It appears that many would rather justify evil, and then be consumed by it, than to humble themselves before God; than to seek God's mercy, and accept the full weight of their transgressions.
And somehow you continue to insist that the Indians of Columbus's day, that stole the land from the "indigenous", had more authority in it's ownership than the people of Washington's day.
Sorry, but I fail to understand just how what Washington did (fighting an enemy and the allies of an enemy) is any different than what the tribes he was fighting did when THEY took the land. You obviously do, but then you also obviously wish the Indians to be elevated to a pedestal they never earned - that of being the people that crossed the land bridge in Alaska. That the land in the America's was fought over for millenia, just like the land everywhere else in the world, is conveniently set aside and ignored, but most people won't take that tack.
Also he keeps repeating a fallacy that the Indians owned the land. Their philosophy is that all had rights to the land. The more powerful, the more rights, it turns out to be. There is an account that the Indians saw the Pilgrims coming ashore and could have easily annihilated them. They let them come because it was time for a change. Of coarse every point I bring up is a pack of lies and only W. B. is the authority and only what he says is correct.
Well, yes. Any suggestion that Indians were actual, live people just like the rest of mankind (albeit still rooted in stone age technology) is not permitted. They were superior morally, physically and spiritually (never killing or subjecting another tribe) and the Evil White Man wiped them from the earth.
Once again you have brought your strawman to the party. I have never said that anybody "owned " the land. No one can own land. That is a European fantasy and concept that was imported. Real Estate, or the concept of land ownership, is one of the greatest evils of our time. I said that the European stole the Indigenous lands. Big difference!
When an individual holds a stewardship to a particular property, it doesn't mean they "own" it. They are simply managing the property and using it to fulfill their needs. Everyone needs a place to live. You cannot expect a human being to pay a price of admission for the basic necessities: Food,Air,Water, and Land. The people used the land that they needed. Not because they owned it, but because it is every man's birthright.
But the European was not satisfied with the basics. He said, I would like to live here beside you. I told him: "Yes you can live beside me". Another European came and said, "I too would like to live beside you". And once again I said:, ":Yes, you can live over there. But then another came, and still another. And then one day they all came to my house and said "You are not welcome among us, and so you must leave and never return. If you do not leave and give us your land, we will lay you to waste!"
This is the story of America.There are no alternate versions.
.
People have been fighting over land since there were people. It's not an American invention.
Perhaps you should read the post before commenting. I was commenting about the evil concept of Real Estate. This concept did not exist in the Free World before the European Invasion.
That other group you hate so much, the Jews, owned land plots grave sites, houses etc. And it stays in the family and sometimes the records get lost until they dig up some burial set and the names are on the boxes or openings dug into the side of the grave cave. And if they owned guns in Europe, Hitler and his thugs would not have gotten so far. It was totally different when they reclaimed Israel because they had guns then.
The Indians had and used guns against the settlers. That was their mistake.
If the land wasn't owned, then it cannot be stolen, your quaint and unworkable notions notwithstanding. Deciding that YOU make the rules for all mankind, whether workable or not, is not supportable.
Please tell me who, or what tribe did the Taino steal the islands of Hispaniola, Cuba,Puerto Rico, and Jamaica from? You often bring this up, and so I am sure that you can tell us the answer.
Well, according to you, land cannot be stolen because it cannot be owned. Either that is true or not; make up your mind.
But I will submit that empty land can be taken, and owned, without theft. And land that is already occupied must be either stolen or bought like Long Island was. Of course, the definition of "occupied" differs from culture to culture; the early settlers did not recognize anyone "owning" tens of thousands of acres of empty land. Neither do you; between the two, then, it seems that what those people did was quite legal.
Is it possible for you not to resort to such tactics ? I have never commented that land cannot be stolen because it cannot be owned. That's your take. I said land can't be owned. Look up the definition for stewardship. As far as all that empty land you claim. If that's true then Andrew Jackson would have had no reason to forcibly relocate the 5 Civilized Tribes in order to gain access to 21 million acres of land. Furthermore, the whole business of reservations would have never started if all the empty land that you claim existed had been available to the settlers. The people were sent to reservations to get them out of the way in order for the good God-fearing "Little House on The Prairie Folk" to take possession and build churches.Pretty straightforward Mr. wilderness.
Here:
steal
[stēl]
VERB
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it:
See that added bolding: it refers to ownership. You cannot steal what is not owned, by definition then. But of course you wish to use the term to indicate evil, so that is ignored; you pretend it isn't there.
Nor does it help your case to jump from one topic to another; it quickly becomes apparent that the reason for doing so is that you cannot defend your stance. (The topic was theft by very early settlers, but now you wish to speak of Jefferson).
But we're far off the topic of this thread, and on to your personal vendetta of showing all races but Indians are evil, satan spawned creatures from the deep. I leave to you excessive verbiage and unsupported claims.
So is it about reparations , is that why you're beating a dead horse- to death again about your land , my land or nobodies land ? Maybe we should all just let history lay where it lays . The dirty nasty Europeans won and the pure and god like Native Americans lost ! It's the same old world wide story , the displaced indigenous and the mighty conquerors. One loses and one wins . Welcome to reality .
No, I would never expect a Christian nation to actually follow Jesus. What it's about is people making claims that are refuted by the historical record. Nothing that I have related concerning American History is my opinion. All verifiable facts. And we can see how close everybody here pays attention. wilderness claims I was talking about Jefferson when you can clearly see I said "Jackson". It's no wonder that many of you can't understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. It's one idea. R E A D I T S L O W .
The second amendment , the simplest single sentence of our constitutional language AND the purest language ever even put into the constitution or anywhere ! Why I am not surprised though ,at the general lack of education , reading skills , interpretive common sense , that it Is SO absolutely widespread in today's , America ? Too many people do not know , nor can they comprehend even our own history , say nothing of world history .
Bottom line ; the interpretive ability for simple reading comprehension , the political immaturity levels of the average American , the lack of definitive moral , ethical , and honest educational standards today .......and you realize that a lot of Americans are simply spouting off about things they have no clue about . Too bad that speaking skills develop way , way before maturity levels . I really wish that our education system wasn't at the bottom of the barrel in todays world , it's actually embarrassing to read about how some people interpret a single sentence.
The second amendment isn't going anywhere ! It will never be interpreted by the courts to mean anything but what it simply states .- "The People "- I DO believe President Obama WILL write an executive action against it though ! Which will be repealed by another action by another leader , of which he is truly not ! .
A question for anyone though , Do you NOT believe that any major altering of the second amendment would almost immediately cause an armed uprising ? I do , and I also believe it's about time that average Americans awaken their sleeping political apathy . Ever heard of the "Vast Silent Majority " ,a term used until just a few years ago to describe America's political ,middle majority ?
I do believe that this President is stepping all over the feet of that entity of political idealist . He has from the beginning and continues that same activist mentality .
ahorseback:
An armed uprising is called Anarchy. Who is going to lead this anarchy, the NRA? Is that the militia you are talking about? Is it going to be all the people in all 50 states or just the gun people and who are they going to up rise against. Are they going to march on Washington? How do you envision this up-rising taking place? I think you should stop being so delusional. It sounds like you are just itching for a fight, so that you can use your tools for which they are designed.
You are right the 2nd amendment isn't going any place, because it causes no laws to be broken other than the right's of all people to bare arms. What we need are laws that are about gun ownership accountability. Gun people use the argument of why should they be inconvenienced because they are law abiding citizens and know they are mentally sound?
When you go to an airport to board a plane, you have to take off your shoes, empty, you pockets, take off your belt and put everything on a conveyor belt to be x rayed. You cannot have more than 3.4 ounces of liquids in your carry-on. Then you have to walk through a metal detector to see if you have any arms or bombs on you. And all the while, you know that you are a law abiding citizen. So why is everybody subjected to this? Because it's the only way you can ensure that all of those boarding that flight are not a threat to themselves or to others. The pilots are even locked in the cockpit behind closed steel doors.
You see it is the same with gun ownership accountability, because it accounts for everybody, including criminals and the mentally ill. Women now have to have their purses searched when they enter a theater. Why, because of the mass killings that took place in theaters. You can argue that you are a law abiding citizen and it is a violation of your rights. But how about the person carrying a weapon to board an airplane, it is their right to bare arms up until the point they are discovered and then the law takes over from that point, but not the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment gives that person the right to bare those arms, pure and simple.
Two days ago, a six year old boy killed his 3 year old brother while playing cops and robbers. He shot him point blank in the face with his father's gun. His father was under investigation as a gang member and had just left the house. His son picked-up his gun and shot his brother. The 2nd amendment gave the father the right to bare arms. He will be tried for child abandonment, not for possession of a firearm. The 2nd amendment gave him the right to bare those arms.
In Tennessee, a 13 year old boy was upset because his little girl neighbor would not let him pet her cat. He went in the house, picked up his dad's loaded shot gun and killed her. The father was not at home, but he had the right to bare those arms. He is also being tried for child abandonment.
You can argue, that the parents should have been more responsible, but how do you enforce responsibility? Everybody has to be inconvenienced with laws to promote the safety of others. Just like in the airports, including law abiding gun people.
Today, a black man was having car problems. An off duty police officer in plain clothes, stopped to help him. The black man shot and killed the officers because he thought he was being attacked. It was a case of double mistaken identity.
A lady was in a parking lot at Walmart when she thought she saw a shoplifter enter his car. As the car pulled away she pulled out her permitted concealed weapon and shot the tires out from under the car. She was admonished and arrested by the police for reckless endangerment of the public. It turns out the guy was not a shoplifter. The 2nd amendment gave her the right to bare those arms, even with a concealed carry permit.
So you and all your gun people are going to have to bite the bullet, sooner or later, because the media is a 24 hour echo machine that loves to talk about gun killings. People will get fed up and the movement for gun ownership accountability will come from the streets, not congress and the NRA.
The 2nd amendment is the only amendment in the bill of rights that is based on a tool that was developed in 1791, not rapid fire, high capacity weapons of today. The essence of the rest of the amendments have not changed and still serve the people well, but no matter how you slice it the 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bare arms.
You are wrong! The 2nd is based on on idea. That is the protection of the state and people of said state.
Later states formed militias of males between 16 and 60 or 18 and 45 depending on which article you read. The weapons were to be what the feds or an invading army would be using. Today that would be automatic assault weapons, hand carried other devices, shoulder rockets, drones radios, etc.
This is all left up to the individual state. So the regime is unconstitutionally dictating our rights. The only time they can have jurisdiction is when such weapons are carried over state lines and if they can prove some insurgent activity in a state. Maybe some other instances that are way out of the norm??
If those women were allowed concealed carry in their purses a lot of those killings could have been prevented in those useless gun free zones. Which turned out to be a magnet for the drugged up crazies.
So the regime is trying to take our rights away so we become defenseless for other actions they would like to take on us. This applies to any political party, not just the present ones. Why would the present regime want billions of rounds of ammo while limiting ours? Or want an army of ex cons bigger than the present armed forces?
Peoplepower , actually Anarchy is more like what's going on today in America's " political leadership "
No leadership , a people and due process out of control .
" What we need are laws ..............about gun ownership accountability "--- Right , every legal sale of a gun is recorded by the feds , what more do we need , Okay laws to do with carrying a gun WE HAVE THEM. How about interstate transportation of guns , WE HAVE THEM , well what about carrying a concealed weapon ......WE HAVE THEM TOO ........okay let's see what about felons having guns in the there possession ? WE HAVE THEM ............ How far should I go on Peoplepower !
What we need are prosecutors with the balls to prosecute , Judges with the ganoochies to judge , and jailers with the will to jail !
IT DOES ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD AT ALL TO BE A NATION OF LAWS , WHICH WE ARE , IF THOSE LAWS ARE IGNORE BY THE ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM just as much as they are ignored by the criminals !
Hello Peoplepower73, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. I have been following this thread, (kudos for starting such a long-lived thread), and if the extremes. (on both sides), are discounted, then it appears, (to me) that even though you say you want gun control legislation, your logic seems to indicate a gun ban is the only acceptable solution for you, based on your examples .
The internet is buzzing with the number of gun control laws already in the books, (2000 to 22,000 - take your pick), but most responses, (yours included), rationalize their positions with arguments that gun violence can only be controlled by a total gun ban.
For instance, in this post, you give several examples that seem to only be correctable by a total gun ban. Yet you say that is not your intent.
Your airport example seems to be a good example of your mindset. All those pain-in-the-ass security restrictions were perpetrated by a response to terrorist fears, are you equating legal gun owners with terrorists? If not, then you seem to be justifying the same silly security precautions with our national problem with illegal gun possession. Criminals don't worry about gun control laws, so who are you addressing?
ps. speaking of the right to bare arms, in my neck of the woods it is time for some sleeves
To wit; "...gun ownership accountability, because it accounts for everybody, including criminals and the mentally ill. "
This must be a "misspeak," because criminals don't abide by the laws, and the mentally ill are already barred from gun ownership. What new gun control laws do you think will address this? (are you advocating a minority report type of process?
And that six year/three year old example... it occurred because of an illegally purchased gun - a former gang member buying from another gang member - a street purchase, not a legally purchased gun. Which is what gun control laws are all about. Do you see some connection between a gang associated street purchase and a legal firearm purchase? -pss I checked multiple news stories about this event, and nowhere did I find a "point-blank" reference, it seems no one witnessed the event, so where do you get the authority to declare it was a gun in the face point-blank shooting?
And that 13 year old shotgun example... geesh, multiple stories reported it all occurred from a bedroom window. The kid did not go into the house to get a gun. The news reports say he was already in the house, and shot from his window. And it was about puppies, not kittens. (I know, picky picky, but what the hell, facts are facts, and yours are wrong)
As for the "everyone has to be inconvenienced" point, really? You want laws to apply to millions because one or two, (or a few), might be left out of the mix? Well then, why don't we totally ban any peanuts in food products because a few might be lethally allergic?
The point that prompted me to reply was this;
"Everybody has to be inconvenienced with laws to promote the safety of others."
Bullhockey! BS!, and a dozen other "you are nuts" synonyms, you want that kind of safety guarantees - then let's follow the bubble-boy example.
Regarding the black man and good Samaritan example - what is your point? The black man was a legal gun owner, guns are bad, or shit happens? Was the black man armed with a legal firearm? What gun control law do you think would have prevented that incident? A complete gun ban right?
And the lady in the Walmart parking lot... good luck with that. Gun control laws to protect us from idiots, I can't wait to hear the details of that legislation. Do you have a solution in mind? Maybe an anger management evaluation, or a "are you smarter than a fifth grader" test.
So no, in my opinion, us gun advocates are not going to have to bite the bullet and accept a bubble-boy world where every possible negative scenario must be legislatively accounted for.
Think about all the aspects in your life that involve other people that could be dangerous; driving to the grocery store, taking your kids to the park, (in my case, grand-kids), going to a restaurant; do you really think you can legislate a danger-free world? Who are the real gun dangers? Criminals! Surely you don't think they are deterred by laws.
There have been many lists and suggestions for new gun control laws in this thread, (most of the suggestions are already covered by gun control laws), and barring the controversial "gun show" loopholes, what would you suggest should be added to legal gun ownership requirements?
Beyond the examples most put forth, the sensational news reporting, (the echo that you say will reach a point of irresistible force to action), and the criminal gun violence examples; what do you think is the most needed new gin control law?
Ga
G.A. : I got my stories from being in Chicago two days ago from the local news channel. I have never said to ban all guns. I said there have to be laws for the accountability of all who own or posses guns. That means registering every single gun and every single transaction. Here are the loop holes:
How about the illegal sale of guns? How about the guns that are sold in the parking lots of gun shows? How about the guns that are bought on the internet without any trace-ability? How about the background checks that get a pass after 24 hours of non-reply? How about the guns that are bought illegally by one person, and are passed on to other people?
Gun advocates argue that there are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books. That's pure bullsh*t propaganda by the NRA and gun advocates. Read this.
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publi … nbook4.pdf
You didn't understand my whole point about the TSA searches. I'm not comparing gun owners with terrorists. I'm showing how the TSA searches ensure that everybody who boards that airplane can have 99% certainty that no one is going to board that plane that can do harm to the plane, crew, or passengers. We all have to be treated alike in order to get that kind of security. We need those same types of gun ownership accountability laws for everyone who posses firearms. it's not gun control or banning guns, but it is accountability.
Here is what I would propose, something similar to what is in the U.K.
"UK firearms policy is based on the fact that firearms are dangerous weapons and the State has
a duty to protect the public from their misuse. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Firearms
control in the UK is among the toughest in the world, and as a result firearms offences continue to
make up a small proportion (less than 0.2%) of recorded crime [ONS 2012/13]."
Here is the link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s … aw_v13.pdf
Greetings again Peoplepower73,
No, you have not advocated a total gun ban, but it seems to me that the public safety and accountability bars you say need to be met can only be accomplished by a total gun ban.
My point about your examples wasn't the pickiness of whether the shot was point blank, or the Walmart woman had a right to do what she did, it was that you appear to want to legislate for every possible scenario, even the ones we don't yet know are possible.
There is no great amount of research, or authoritative links behind what follows, just a perception formed by recollections of the last decade or so of gun incident news stories; Of the great number of reported gun crimes/incidents/tragedies, I believe that the number involving legal gun ownership are a tiny tiny percentage of the total.
But like the old saying; "The squeaky wheel gets the grease," a Sandy Hook or an Aurora will drive a national conversation as if it were the norm and not the exception. Tragedies like this are horrific. People demand that something must be done! So for one Sandy Hook shooter, all gun owners must pay the piper. Activists and politicians offer pablum to the masses and they swallow it up.
Yes, let's ban semi-automatic long guns because out of a zillion gun incidents this year, two involved "Assault weapons."
Yes, let's make it illegal for the mentally ill to get guns, even though documented mental illness is already a deal breaker for a legal gun purchase. When the public is horrified and demands that something be done, an advocated solution doesn't need to address the problem - it only needs to address the public's concerns.
Straw purchases are already illegal. Criminals are already prohibited from legally owning guns. So all the solutions, (ok, maybe I should say most instead of all, and maybe I should add the qualifier that I mean solutions I have seen offered in this thread), are just variants of laws already in place.
I do understand, and agree that there are exploitable loopholes like the gun show issue, but looking at the bigger picture, I think they amount to a puddle not a lake.
I do not think we can legislate for public safety from every possible danger. For instance, the gun show or private sale loophole; If I want to sell my old shotgun to my neighbor, (who could be a preacher that I have known forever), why the hell not? Because out of a million such gun sales nationwide, a handful might be a semi-auto to an nutcase or idiot? Do you really want your life that controlled? Do you really think that amount of control is even possible?
My point is that our gun violence problems are primarily attributed to criminals - and they don't obey laws anyway, so why pass 'em?
Which brings me back to the statement that the results you want from your promotion of more gun control laws can only be realistically achieved by a total gun ban.
When speaking of populations as large as ours, you just can't legislate for every possibility.
To the TSA reference... do you really think most folks want every aspect of their life as controlled as their trips to the airport? You may be willing to pay that price, but I do not think your acquiesce is a valid rational for justifying that everyone do the same.
Criminals with guns are the problem - not legal gun owners. 10,000 criminal gun incidents in Chicago gets no notice, but a dead three year-old demands more gun control of legal gun owners.
How do we stop the three-year old tragedies? A total gun ban!
ps as for the UK and its privilege of gun ownership... we are not the UK and our gun ownership is a vested right, not a government issued privilege.
pss. yes, there are tweaks that need to be addressed, but that would still be peeing into the wind. What about the gun shows... would a local community VFW sponsored "gun show" with half a dozen shotguns and rifles be subject to the same loophole-closing requirements of some of the more notorious mid-western border state guns shows with dozens and dozens of private and fake-private sellers offering everything from old squirrel guns to BARs and 100 round magazines?
psss. Your Brookings Institute link offers no validation other than the prestige of that institution - but the point of the link sounds reasonable to me. That's why I went with 2000 to 22,000. Who the hell really knows, but even accepting their findings, 300 laws directed at one activity is still a lot.
GA
Why fix what isn't broken?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … nviolence/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk … ?tid=sm_fb
"... is the most needed new gin control law..."
Ha! GIN control, that's a good one. Of course I meant gun control, but considering I was on my second martini - maybe GIN control wasn't a typo, but a Freudian Slip.
GA
EVERY LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER IN AMERICA KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON .
This is all much deeper than just gun controls and IS all being done while America sleeps .
- This is a war of attrition on all American traditions
- This isn't about adjusting the second amendment or magazine capacities .
- This IS about a total ban on firearms
- This IS about the public perception of criminalizing ALL gun owners .
- This IS about the indoctrination of our youth and young adults against most American traditions
- The NEA , and INEA IS behind a lot of the overall pacification of youth
- Anyone who cannot perceive the socialization of young America is blind or in denial
- That liberals will never be admitting these things , it would show the bare truth of their agenda's
- The Socialization* , of our the youth in ANY culture is where all political shift's begin
* "Socialization " is my terminology for lack of better description of what's going on in our schools , to our traditional American culture , ethics and values and has already happened to our young [ and not so young ] adults . And ALL of this is being paid for by YOUR tax revenue's
Oh my, you're on to us. The liberal plot to take your guns and brainwash your children is not working.
Prettypanther , Why don't you explain to us all about why a partisan attack such as the" 2nd amendment of the constitution being outdated " ISN"T a full out attack on such a tradition when at the same time ,
1- Not admitting we have a free range legal system slanted highly in favor of criminals.
2- Not having a comprehensive mental health program as a part of Obama care
3- Not wanting armed guards inside of gun free zones
4- NRA influences once allowed in public schools , is now almost unheard of by agenda
Care to answer ?
Who, specifically, has stated all of those things? Since I have never stated them, It is not my place to argue them.
I didn't say YOU brought these up , It's always the same way though , ask the hard questions and forget about getting answers , deflections are not the same as reflections , My words !
You said: Prettypanther , Why don't you explain to us all about why a partisan attack such as the" 2nd amendment of the constitution being outdated " ISN"T a full out attack on such a tradition when at the same time ,
1- Not admitting we have a free range legal system slanted highly in favor of criminals.
2- Not having a comprehensive mental health program as a part of Obama care
3- Not wanting armed guards inside of gun free zones
4- NRA influences once allowed in public schools , is now almost unheard of by agenda
Okay, maybe a conglomeration of other people said this? I certainly did not, but let me try to address your question, if I understand it correctly.
Stating that the 2nd amendment is outdated is not a full out attack on tradition, given that the Constitution is made to be amended. Remember, the Constitution is referred to as a living document because it is open to constant change whether by ratifying the Constitution with a new amendment or by repealing an existing amendment. So, how can you say a call for change or repeal is "a full out attack on tradition" when the founding fathers created the Constitution as a living document?
As for your list of 4 items, what is a "free range legal system?" Yes, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing does mean that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, as it should be. The Constitution protects citizens from unfair arrest and persecution by the government, something conservatives should be thankful for, given their seeming widespread distrust of government. But, of course, please correct me if I am wrong about that assumption of distrust.
Item #2 - Where did this come up? I must have missed it. Again, I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but the level of mental health coverage is determined by insurance companies. Of course, there are undoubtedly minimum levels required by the Affordable Care Act, but many of those were not in place before the Act was enacted, so if you have a problem with mental heatlh coverage, I don't think Obamacare is the culprit. No, it is the private insurance companies.
Item #3 - I have no problem with armed guards inside of gun free zones, as long as they are adequately trained and safeguards are in place. Of course, then they would not be gun-free zones, so maybe I misunderstand this one?
Item #4 - So, you believe the NRA "influence" should be allowed in schools? Why? If we allow the NRA influence, how about the Planned Parenthood influence, or the Legalize Marijjuana influence? This item truly confuses me, so perhaps I need more explanation.
So, again, I'm truly not clear on how any of this is a partisan attack and a full out attack on tradition, and I'm not sure why I was requested to explain why it wasn't since none of those statements came from me, but hey, I gave it a shot. Perhaps you can give it a shot and respond to all of my points?
Prettypanther ,
1- the second as all amendments IS an amendable document , but there is only one way to change from allowing the people to bear arms - That is to dis-allowing it .
2- Free range legal system - is non-effective after the verdict , today one might as well not even have to be punished for a crime . The whole process is flawed towards the perpetrator .
3-Apparently you do misunderstand , trained , armed , guards means just that , pretty simple
4-NRA in schools ? They couldn't even get near our little babies ,where once guns , hunting , target shooting was trained in co-operation with the schools , today the NEA is a socialist like Nazi organization . Why do you think America's boys were so , effective organized and trained for WWII? Because they knew how to shoot .
It's not hard to see one's intentions when we read into the O.P's. agenda . Before we know it America is so regulated by law that the law abiding man can't even move from the weight of his laws , the only one's totally unmoved by them are those that have no concern for them to begin with - see #2 ?
There really isn't much worth responding to here. You ignored my question about why we should allow the NRA in schools when we don't allow other organizations. So what if they used to be allowed. What would be the rationale to allow them and not others? I would truly like an answer to this question.
Regarding changing the 2nd Amendment, you say that the only change that could possibly be made is to repeal it. Huh? Amending is not an option? Why? Please answer this, as I genuinely want to know how it is you believe that the only change that could possibly be made is to repeal it.
The "free range legal system" comment really needs some supporting documentation. Otherwise, it is merely your opinion. Again, you did not address the reason why the burden of proof is on the prosecution. You know, those pesky little constitutional rights that conservatives LOVE to protect?
I think there is way too much emphasis on the NRA here. Schools are run by the libs. The military recruiters used to be allowed in high schools and colleges. Today, not so much.
The Jews and others in Hitler's Germany, Russia, Iraq, Africa could sure have used guns as a way to protect themselves from tyranny. We have been known to have a large gun owning population. That has, and still keeps us from being invaded. The Christians and other non-conforming groups are being killed in some of those Muslim countries. The Kurds were being slaughtered unill they got some weaponry.
I do not trust the current regime here. The past one was not much better. Yes! We need the 2nd still. Perhaps more so now then in the past!
I have never advocated for repeal of the 2nd Amendment or for the banning of guns, for the umpteenth-millionth time. I really get tired of typing that. Can you all just debate the actual points, rather than ginning up an imaginary position to argue against?
You wrote: "those pesky little constitutional rights that conservatives LOVE to protect?" did you not?
That is the comment I am answering to. You have bashed The Constitution and the 2nd with that remark.
No getting around that.
Some posters here have even tried to have me give up the 1st.! The answer I gave was "Nuts".
I am not protecting nor bashing the NRA. Just saying this hub is about the 2nd. Not about the evils or benefits of the NRA.
I say reply comments given on a thread are not just to the writer. They are for the benefit of all.
I did not bash the constitution. I was being sarcastic, a terrible fault of mine that I rarely 't care about correcting. Ahorseback moans about the possibility of amending the 2nd Amendment, yet also moans about the fact that the constitution protects citizens against unfair arrest and prosecution by the government by placing the burden of proof on the prosecution.
In my case, the conversation only turned to the NRA because ahorseback mentioned their lack of influence in the schools as part of a left-wing conspiracy to take away all of our guns.
Regulation does not equal abolition. I own a gun, and my husband owns several. Why would I want to ban them?
First of all, you have a lot to say about the Constitution, but you, nor anyone else can name one thing the Constitution has ever done for you. Come up the years Doug, and come into the light! And please, do not remind with tired rhetoric how the Constitution has made us "free". It is God who made us free on the day we were born! The Constitution did not stop men from taking our freedom away, enslaving us, and branding us with a number. But God has made us untouchable.
A gun has never saved a man's life except for the man who was starving, and needed to eat. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. This can only be taken in a literal sense. And there is much wisdom in this teaching. Also, in Mark 8:35, Jesus said: " For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me, and for the gospel will save it." Both of these passages work together. If we turn the other cheek and lose our mortal life, we have only lost what we were born to lose anyway. But if we kill a man to save our own life, then we will lose everything, now and forever! These are strong words, and are difficult for many Christians, and atheists alike to understand. And so, it is good that I have come among you.
Here is the latest version of the 2nd amendment:
"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.”
Can somebody please tell me where this "Well regulated Militia" exists today?
Thank you.
Nice pic! Is she one of those women freedom fighters I admire?
You sound a lot saner now than in previous posts.
The Declaration of Independence was bible based. So where the first 10 amendments to some extent.
The 1st gives us the right to free speech. Do you think you or I would be able to say what we have said here in all of the other countries?
The 2nd gives me the right to self protection with a gun or other.
The 14th gave those rights to all people.
The gov. has eaten away at a lot of our rights. The libs are the worse.
Yes! God made us free except for the limitations He put on us due to our individual karma.
The new testament you quote from does not say "No" to slavery. It directs owners to treat their slaves right.
Guns have saved many a man's or women's or child's life. The internet is full of accounts. Even the no gender ones.
You are wrong about losing everything now or forever. Karma! You will have to come back to the school of life for another go till you have paid back and learned. There are plenty of veterans that have killed in battle and have led very successful lives. Who are you to judge? Besides I take what is in the new testament as mulled over by a bunch of bishops who wanted to please Roman emperor Constantine and his bitchy wife in the fist centuries AD at the time the bible was being thrown together. Do the research! The Nicene Creed is what most Christian churches follow is from the then Councils of Nicene. And many other councils and gatherings.
You're right - I did indeed misread your statement.
Does that mean that you view Jackson as one of the very early settlers? Born two hundred years after Columbus, a native to the (soon to be) country, it is difficult to see how you would think he was an early immigrant.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! You have said many times the Europeans come and stole Indian land. You even stated that was the reason they came. Go back over your posts and count. I know several times because I am one that had to repeat over and over that the Indians did not own land for others to steal.
Your retort to Quill reminds me of the moment in the Wizard of Oz when Toto pulls the curtain away to expose the real man pushing the buttons and exclaims, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! And he continues in his tirade.
Any one can piecemeal together arbitrary facts and theories to make a point but it begins to loose its impact when through historical facts reported in context to the "story" makes it begin to fall apart. Look I believe a lot of American history is made up to paint a pretty picture of the country but I would not make points that can't be verified and especially those involving highly revered people just to make a theory more interesting or to prove a point.
It is a testament to the American Indian that they took so long to be conquered by the white man. Columbus thought he had a ready made slave labor force he did not have to import. The problem was they could just walk away and be fine staying away from the white man. That is why the need for the African slave was needed in place of the Indian. Bringing in a foreign element who was unfamiliar with his new surroundings made the African slave much more controllable to the slave masters of early America. All of this was astoundingly wrong but acceptable to the mindset of the Europeans coming here at the time. What is pathetic is that the Europeans abolished slavery long before the US did and it took a terrible war to do so.
I have been in Chicago for five days, but I have been following this forum that I started. I'm now home and back to my computer. I can appreciate the Indians plight. I believe that this country, in the name of Manifest Destiny, made refugees out of an indigenous people by putting them on reservations. The Cherokee were living in houses and speaking English at the time they were put on the Trail of Tears and sent to reservations.The Lakota's could live on their land until gold was discovered in the Black Hills and then it was game up for them. We wanted that gold, we killed off their food supply, which was mainly buffalo and sent them to reservations.
But on the other hand, and I don't mean to be inhumane and simplistic about this, but here are a couple of trite sayings that are based on reality: "History is written by the victors and might is always right." They are both sad but true. Throughout our history on this planet, that is the way it has been. I have to leave now to go exercise, but when I get back, I'm going to talk about the 2nd amendment and see if I can get this forum back on track.
Sorry for the hijacking but it always comes back to the Indians with Wrench. I believe he is part or whole blooded Indian.
So do I with his hypocritical drivel against Jews, Christians and whites. Did I miss any?
The 2nd even allowed Indians generally to own.
Do you really think that the Brits or the French were going to chase the setters away so the Indians
could come back and retake the the land. Notice I don't say reclaim stolen lands. The Indians didn't own land at that time. So how can Europeans steal something that is not owned? Again, If the Indians on the Brits side did not go massacring they would most likely have been left alone. Washington had Indians from the same groups on his side. His anti-Indian actions were against those that sided with the Brits.
I thought this thread was about the 2nd? Not a forum to rant about the past that has nothing to do with the
2nd. Start another hub about the evil settlers and the innocent Indians!
To the contrary, my post has had the intended impact. It corrected a false and biased claim that was designed to infuse anti-establishment bigotry and prejudice into a segment of our history where none ever existed. It fulfilled the same purpose as the guy with the shovel, you know, the one that follows behind the elephants in the circus parade. It removed the droppings left by another that did not know any better. It is a chore that is rarely rewarding, but someone has to do it.
As anticipated, here we have the often repeated and now totally recognizable pattern of lie and run. A posted reply that does not acknowledge the intended distortion but quickly changes the subject, this time to Zionism in the Middle East. However, to this observer the ploy is an admission that the truth had again been mutilated and sacrificed on the Altar of Anarchy by an ego that is unable to admit that it made a human mistake.
Quill the wordster! Its amazing how you can put words together.
That is not complimentary at all but its fun to read. Like wow man!
I am pleased to have added some fun in your life. We can never have too much fun.
You actually have given me too much credit, and I must say that your imagination seems to be in good order. I wasn't attempting to infuse anything as you have suggested. I was simply telling the truth as the historical record has revealed. I realize that many are not accustomed to the truth, but I am quite struck that you would call me a liar when my comments can be easily verified with the click of the mouse. Concerning murder and genocide,if you ask a dead man, he will tell you that there is no room for interpretation.
Sure you did. A very cherry picked version from our history, with very pertinent bits left out to give an intentionally false impression.
While some will call it "truth", most will not.
More pompous and factually-anemic distortions intended to blur the truth.
Your post in this forum did attempt to infuse a false notion into the historic meaning of an order given by George Washington to Major General Sullivan during the American Revolution.
Your post did not tell the whole truth as revealed by the historical record at the time the letter was written. Your post withheld vital historical details that substantially nullified the false impression you hoped to create.
Your reply contains more pompous self-glorification to salve a persona incapable of admitting a flawed conclusion. "I realize that many are not accustomed to the truth."
"Concerning murder and genocide" Nice try, but we were not discussing murder and genocide. We were discussing accusations of anti-Indian sentiments that have been proven to be unjustified.
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.
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.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tree_Flag
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.
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.
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.
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".
The evidence is all around. There are a lot of gods but only one God.
<"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!!!!!
I am a civilian of the United States, not the divided states.
I believe in "we the people".
yeah, and…?
Do you believe in the electoral college?
Do you believe in states rights and their borders?'
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.
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.
There are said to be techniques that energize certain unused DNA that open new areas of consciousness.
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.
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
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 -
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 !
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 !
Interesting post, wrenchBiscuit. The majority of lawyers, judges and governments are deceptive. It is entertaining, that is too true.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 ~
It's fascinating that they can't seem to understand one sentence. Imagine how they must twist, mangle, and misinterpret an entire paragraph!
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.
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.
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?
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.
LOL ~ 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 ~
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.
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"
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'?
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!
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 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 , but I'll take the FOUNDERS Words instead
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!
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 ~
"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 ~
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please Doug, with just "one" word, tell us what a militia is made out of; the main component. One word will suffice.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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".
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.
,
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 .
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
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.
Great , Now these killings happen because guys are still virgins ! Yeaa ,what will you guys come up with next !
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 .
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.
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 ~ ~
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 ~ ~
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.
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 .
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.
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 .
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 ~ ~
"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"
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 ?
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******
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.
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
The Civil War 1861-1865 was fought by state militias that were active before the war began. The rebel flag, that has been taken down recently, was the battle flag of N. Carolina. The regular Confederate Army had a different flag.
There is nothing wrong with a 5 year old having a gun. As long as they are responsible and strong enough to handle it. School kids carried to protect themselves and others.
The 2nd was a right given the citizen and it was not to be infringed by state laws. That is how it is supposed to be interpreted.
The states said the militia was white males between 16 or 18 and 45 to 60. Depending on the state.
This was mandatory in some states.
I must repeat that the blacks, not in the militia, were allowed to keep the guns they used while in the Union Army. And the other blacks, not in the army or militia, were allowed to own. Also the 14th amendment gave them and others that right. Both, Biscuits and A. Primate have read the comments and continue their drivel about militia only when others and me have blown that out of the water.
Even the Indians were allowed.
"There is nothing wrong with a 5 year old having a gun"
That is the dumbest statement ever put to print. A lethal weapon in the hands of a 5 year old child? How can any 5 year old child be 'responsible"? Even with supervision, the prospect is still quite dangerous.
This gun culture thing is nutsville. I am not going to dispute your concept of militia, but I will say in the face of the rightwing gun fanatics, we black folks are certainly not going to be caught unarmed!
You are a total hypocrite! The blacks, not in a militia, can own and the whites can't ? What is your cutoff for teaching your young to kill other races? 6?. How can you even talk when you have Chicago as your example.
Are you listening? I did not exclude ownership for anybody, just be sure that that right will be insisted upon and asserted by black people, we are never going to allow all the rightwing gun nuts to carry exclusively, without protecting ourselves. That statement about 5 year olds is still quite dumb. I know your TYPE, your continued references to Chicago gives you away.
Five year olds know a lot about guns. They love em. And probably will recognize a bad guy much quicker than an adult.
You and Biscuits are the ones bringing up race. I said things in the positive about the Indians and the blacks being allowed to own. Not in a threatening way like your racist statements. Facts are facts.
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!
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.
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 :-)
or ever ever ever ever ever touch a single gun EVER!
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.
because we are a basically civilized trusting people, like the Indians were
at first...
Really? We didn't wait for nearly 250 years before we started killing the colonialist invaders. What are the Americans waiting for?
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.
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!
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.
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!
Even Jesus advised some of his disciples to carry swords!
~ are swords okay, guys?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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?
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!
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!
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.....
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.
so you think. Those who love God no matter what age DO NOT THINK THIS WAY!
BTW we have ALWAYS been a MELTING POT!
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?
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.
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.
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.
~ 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.
Did you not know that the issue is not toy guns but the real thing?
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.
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 .
by Tara Carbery 12 years ago
Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?This tragedy wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed guns. Why the hell do people need gun's anyway?
by Mike Russo 20 months ago
I watched Fareed Zakaria's show yesterday and saw these shocking statistics that I thought were worthy of sharing.According to the Gun Violence Archive (The link to the site is at the end of this post)19,942 Americans have died in gun-related incidents this year.541 Children and Teenagers (0-17)...
by Josh Ratzburg 8 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
by flacoinohio 12 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
by Claire Evans 10 years ago
I went to a cat lover's site on Facebook page. Somebody posted a picture of a man holding up the head of a decapitated cat. Can someone explain why somebody would do something like this? Is it necessary for the evolutionary process? Was evolution responsible for that? If you...
by Allen Donald 7 years ago
We've had three mass killings (that we've heard about) in the last month. Here they are:1. Las Vegas - Oct. 1 - a man using various guns kills 58 people and injures another 546.2. New York - Oct. 31 - a man uses a truck and kills 8 people and injures 11 others.3. Sutherland Springs, Texas - Nov. 5...
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
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 DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This 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 Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This 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 Libraries | Javascript 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 Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This 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 YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This 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 Login | You 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) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We 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 Pixels | We 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 Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore 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 Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |