The outdated 2nd amendment.

Jump to Last Post 201-250 of 519 discussions (4003 posts)

0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
In plain language ;

The movement afoot to revise our history in the U.S. is fed by a lame and leftist agenda, this very same agenda is the one responsible for the many political trends in our history to end traditional constitutional law in favor of a form of enlightened and liberal "socialism ", a rather lame replacement for something that has worked where so many such forms of government fail , Call that whatever you may. They who tend to demonize our very unique history in the U.S. would have anyone who listens , especially the American youth , themselves a very young and captive audience , that our U.S. history is born of an evil empirical domination of everything else politically available . There was absolutely NO difference between the writers of the constitution and the readers of the same ."WE the People " was then ONE people.

However , what it has become is a different story , As in all utopia's that fail , perhaps it is the revisionist's who are the ultimate cause , Those very same people's offspring who grow tired of the commitment , privilege , traditions that were created by real leaders with a vision inspired by strength and individualism , by total commitment to the work that it takes to maintain the garden of the farmer .,if you will . Once a people no longer have to commit themselves to making it work instead of tearing it down , all utopia's fall . The picture here is actually descriptive of those who founded , wrote , read and made the greatest constitution in the world ,work !

reply report
1. 71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  No, this is the picture. This is how they did it. To the tune of: "This Is How We Do It !".
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  wrenchbisket , If your posts were even worth responding to , which they aren't , I might say " Why Not " , Why not turn everything YOU don't agree with ......Into an issue of Racism ! That's quite frankly , the general response of losers . Shame on you ,
  
  But then you are a shock jock ! Aren't you.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  First of all, I didn't beat the man in the picture, and neither did I take the photograph. This image is a matter of historical record. One of many proofs of how America became one of the richest nations in the world. To speak of America, and to not speak of evil and racism, is like speaking about life and ignoring the importance of oxygen. You paint a pretty picture by ignoring the truth. I have no need to resort to pedestrian insults when you clearly have exposed yourself. Read and learn.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh , but I have read and learned much . About slavery being an entire world disorder then and even still , one where America came in after it was invented and exited even as slavery exists today . I have also read and learned of Native American slavery and kidnapping , genocide and warring , How destitute a history that those like yourself would re-write ! One where the great evil America alone was the only evil of the day , shame on you still .....for your one sided outlook , such naiveté speaks volumes to todays P.C. plague.
  
  You bountiful blasts of rhetoric bore me still.
  
  By the way the man in the photo that you exploit , Gordon , or whipped Peter , a freed La. plantation slave went on to become a soldier in the US. Colored Troops , against the Rebel cause , who probably ALSO loved his country .You should perhaps read and learn more yourself.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  There is an abundance of people here on Hubpages who use the technique of propping up a strawman whenever they have no other way to refute an argument. I can clearly see that you are counted among them. I responded directly to your claim: the one accompanied by the "Little House on the Prairie " illustration, and it was shewn that your tired commentary on the past "greatness" of America is a fictional best seller, only second to the Wizard of Oz. The truth will always expose a lie. The point of the argument has nothing to do with all of the things you mentioned ; real or imagined. You made a false statement that I clearly refuted with the facts. Your logic would have us believe that Ted Bundy is not such a bad guy since he only killed between 36-40 human beings, as opposed to Luis Garavito who may have killed well over 400!
  
  Stars shining bright above you
  Night breezes seem to whisper "I love you"
  Birds singing in the sycamore trees
  Dream a little dream of me
  
  P.S.
  Yeah, I'm sure that Gordon loved the people who decided after a free ride of over 400 years, "You know, maybe slavery's not such a good idea". Right.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Well , wrenchbisket , perhaps you feel passion after all which isn't such a bad thing . The propped up straw man perhaps , Is best illustrated in the need for more P.C. warriors like yourself , You've after all , got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything , Good luck with that , I'll stick to the truth , there is after all , only one of those. The one constant in life.
  reply report
  81
  Eco_Aliposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  PUHLEESE... we recognize the symptoms ... I'm sure you have as well. This is a futile argument. Our friend wrenchbisket is leaning so far right he is about to fall off his cliff notes. Those folks are driving the same dysfunction and denialplaguing our legislators in Washington today. It is an unsustainable ideology and unsustainable argument... You must recognize the symptoms of raunch conservativism. Just let that foul wind blow. Eventually it will calm and die and the truth will rise with the dawn.
  
  reply report
2. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  O.K. ahorseback: You keep saying We the people." I don't if you know that you are quoting the phrase out of context of the Preamble to the Constitution. it goes like this:
  
  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
  
  Insure domestic tranquility...that means I have the right to feel safe. Currently I don't feel safe by everybody, including mentally ill, and criminals to have the right to bear arms, just to give you the right to protect yourself from some future pretend tyranny that has been propagandized by the right wing and the NRA to sell more guns.
  
  Provide for the common defence. This is from Article 1, Section 16 of your constitution:
  
  "16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
  
  It says ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS...NOT THE NRA. or some ragtag militia made up of "we the people" on the streets.
  
  Now, lets continue. the next phrase says "promote the general welfare." You see, you and your ilk are constantly spouting off about Socialism as being a bad thing. But I don't know if you realize it or not. In order for our form of government to work properly, there needs to be a balance between socialism and capitalism. There are some things that are preformed better by our government than by private people. The right wing propaganda machine has brainwashed you people into to thinking every time you hear "Socialism" You equate it to Communism, Fascism, and NAZI Germany and imagine in your mind that is what it means, Why? because you have been brainwashed, by the very people who do not have your best interest at heart, but they do need votes to keep the money flowing to the super rich capitalist.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower , I know exactly of which I quote , but let's make it clear , This thread of yours IS about the second amendment '........the people ", and they are and were the same , We the people !
  
  It shows the historical -intelligence of todays anti's though , to compare todays very organized military with the militia of the early days . The un-organized militia then was as you know , farmers etc.......how then is not "the right of the people shall not be infringed ".........the same people who you so conveniently divide from the militia ? One people -one militia = "the right of the people."
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  95% of shootings are committed by folks WITHOUT mental illness. 95% of folks with mental illness have NEVER committed a violent crime, in fact are much more likely than average to become victims. please stop throwing folks with mental illness under the bus. this sort of baseless stigma stops folks from seeking help when they need it. rage, not mental illness causes violence.
  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an … urder.html
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  cathylynn99:
  
  From what I have observed, almost every mass shooting of school children was committed by someone who was suffering from mental illness. I can give you a list of them, if you want. But I think you already know who they are. I do agree with you. The majority of mentally ill are not any threat to anybody.
  
  There is degree of mental illness just like there is a degree of any illness. I could say that the majority of mentally ill who committed mass shootings on school campuses were suffering from anger management issues. But I believe the media has done a good job of presenting that. So I have made the assumption that people have the knowledge that these shooters are suffering from some type of anger management issues. Again I could give you a list, but I think you know who they are.
  
  You say that rage is the problem, not mental illness. However, when rage becomes a deep rooted obsession and they write manifestos about how alienated they feel in society. I think it could qualify as mental illness, especially when they are ready to take their own lives or have somebody take it from them.
  
  You have to understand, my position is about the 2nd amendment giving everybody the right to bear arms, including those people who have extreme rage issues. Since the 2nd amendment does not qualify who can bare arms, I have to generalize who the mentally ill are. Or else each time I mention them I have to say it is only the ones who have extreme rage issues.
  
  You may be right that only 5% of mentally ill have committed mass shootings. However it is much like an airliner crashing and everybody is killed. Airline travel is one of the safest form of transportation. However when one goes down, it is a massive tragedy. The same thing occurs with mass shootings, they are horrific tragedies, especially when they involve school children. It is not my intention to throw anybody under the bus. I hope you can understand that.
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  rage and alienation are not mental illnesses.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What are they?
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  human frailties.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So all the mass shooters who killed all the school children, college students, and church people are supposed to be called "human frailties", instead of mentally ill people? O,K. I read your profile and I can understand your compassion for these individuals based on your past work. But, I don't think most people would understand what you mean and it would require further explanation. So thank you for your comments.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower , So by now you're realizing that life and some of it's questions and attempted solutions are simply opening a can of worms . Especially in the time sensitive controversies like the second amendment . I say time sensitive because you've fallen into the trap of the issues dealing with hot potato election year topics. Or maybe you knew that already and that was your agenda .
  
  Either way , Your president probably won't even do an executive action on this , at least not a serious one , Why? Because the second amendment is simply one of those unchanging and divisive topics that allow activist leaders to keep all of OUR eye's diverted from the REAL problems of our culture today . Obama will get his legacy , his foundation that will outlast his name , my guess is that his will be centered around inner city Chicago where it all began .
  
  How's that whole "hope and change" look now ?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback:
  
  I haven't fallen into any trap. Those are your words. The fact is the 2nd amendment is outdated and subject to interpretation. This has been proven by this forum and the supreme court justices who dissented against justice Scalia's ruling. The 2nd amendment is not going to be changed. But we still need laws to provide for the accountability of all guns. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that prevents a person from illegally possessing a weapon and using it to commit mass killings or any other type of crimes. It can't be proven statistically because there are no records, but common sense does prevail.
  
  Therefore there needs to be new laws. You and your kind say there are over 2,000 laws on the books today. That is urban legend that was started by Reagan after he was shot and the right wing picked it up and ran with it. In fact, there are about 300 gun laws nation wide.
  
  You want the culture to change. However to lower the crime rate, you need laws that are passed by congress. But they are not going to pass those laws, because they are gridlocked and bought by the super rich and corporations. The only way the culture will change is from the grass roots when people are fed up and tell their congressmen. Are you willing to do that. Are you willing to start a movement or would you rather blame liberals for the whole mess?
  
  All of the promises and pledges that you hear from both sides of the isle are all BS. First they have to get congress to approve their ideas and then pass laws.. Trump is going to build a wall. He has to get congress to approve it first and they won't because it has to pass both houses of congress. The republican controlled house might pass it, but the democratic senate will kill it...Welcome to the real world.
  
  The whole hope and change thing is based on what I just said. The agenda of the republican congress was to make Obama a one term president and they failed. The current agenda is to block his every move. However, he gets things done in spite of what your conservative friends try to do.
  
  I guess you didn't know that Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years. Look it up Please don't quote Sarah Palin, She makes my skin crawl every time I hear her incoherent babbling. Is that the best you got?
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower ,
  
  MOST importantly , What you and all advocates for more gun laws never grasp is this , The utilization of EXISTING gun crime laws is all but non-existent ! Perhaps you may explain why ?
  
  Of your own number -300 + - gun laws on the books already and I'm sure there are more than that , there should be sufficient enforcement powers to prosecute gun law violators ? No.......Why ?, because of piss poor enforcement , prosecution , and incarceration of existing criminals and gun crimes ? I think it's simply safe to say that's entirely the fault of soft liberal judges with idealist agenda's.. And BULL***t, that that its not true that judges have all but rendered our complete criminal justice system useless ! Why?
  
  Thousands and thousands of plead down violent crime instances yearly . I am a news buff and Its so obvious that that's an everyday occurrence now ! I believe most Americans who call for more laws are simply naïve to this ! Why write MORE law if what we have now is exploited by liberal prosecution, enforcement and incarceration numbers ? What a farce .
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Read a report today on racial profiling by police where it was pointed out that it is nearly impossible to drive your car more than a few blocks without violating some law or another. It's used primarily to give cops a reason to stop you - they can always find a reason.
  
  Is the proliferation of gun laws the same idea?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  MOST importantly , What you and all advocates for more gun laws never grasp is this , The utilization of EXISTING gun crime laws is all but non-existent ! Perhaps you may explain why ?
  
  Of your own number -300 + - gun laws on the books already and I'm sure there are more than that , there should be sufficient enforcement powers to prosecute gun law violators ? No.......Why ?, because of piss poor enforcement , prosecution , and incarceration of existing criminals and gun crimes ? I think it's simply safe to say that's entirely the fault of soft liberal judges with idealist agenda's.. And BULL***t, that that its not true that judges have all but rendered our complete criminal justice system useless ! Why?
  
  Thousands and thousands of plead down violent crime instances yearly . I am a news buff and Its so obvious that that's an everyday occurrence now ! I believe most Americans who call for more laws are simply naïve to this ! Why write MORE law if what we have now is exploited by liberal prosecution, enforcement and incarceration numbers ? What a farce .
  
  I don't have to explain your assertions of non-existent gun crime laws, . But I think you do owe the forum an explanation of not only that but examples of soft liberal judges that have rendered our criminal justice system useless.
  
  Are you saying that our criminal justice systems lets criminals go free and that you are blaming all of this on soft liberal judges?
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Talk about a hyperbolic meltdown! It is a fact that the United States has the highest rate of incarceration as any other industrialized nation. Your rant has no basis in fact.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So , you would think one cannot rant on about needing more gun laws and then spout off in whining that what has been used in prosecution isn't working , Point is , If incarceration doesn't work ; why write more laws for prosecution ? That is the liberal way of continuing anarchy. Guess what ? Busted .
  report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  First of all, I don't support more government or more laws. You simply made a statement that wasn't true, and so you were properly corrected. Furthermore, I am an anarchist, and you obviously don't know the meaning of the word. You , like many others here keep falsely equating anarchy with chaos. The word simply means "without government", and like socialism, or a capitalist democracy, it has several forms,or variations.
  
  I fail to see what you mean by "Busted" when it is you who have displayed a general lack of knowledge. Your tactic of debate, like several others here on this forum, destroy's your credibility. You cannot win an argument based on the facts, and so you create a fiction that your "logic" can prevail against. It is better to concede defeat, or at least admit an error, than to continue propping up strawmen; simply for the sake of winning an argument. Whenever you are in need of correction, rest assured, I will be sure to deliver.
  report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Without government" is chaos wrenchbisket , it certainly would be here in America and you can't deny that , . And your typical calls for anarchy like solutions to any issue that you discuss on many forums shows your actual lack of simple understanding of them to BEGIN with . That's why juveniles aren't allowed voting privileges or driving rights , that's why teenagers can't be counted on for any rational thought in adult decision making .
  
  Some people simply never evolve beyond that stage in serious debate or discussion . Your responses on forums can always be predicted and counted for their shock jock mentality .In truth , your usual solutions to real and important issues of the day might as well be scribbled on bathroom stalls . Now I understand where they always originated from .
  report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Again, although we are on opposite sides of the political fence, Ahorseback agree about anarchy as a viable political form (but not as much about teenagers). The only country that comes to mind that was "without government" is post-revolution France. The French Revolution in the late 1700s resulted in a Republican form of government ... for awhile. Then it devolved into what I can only describe as anarchy with the necessary violence as human nature plays itself out to the ultimate conclusion dictatorship (Napoleon, in this case). Anarchy, like Capitalism, is self-destructive without governmental checks; and for the same reason ... there are is no mechanism to stop a few humans who find it necessary to control others and even more humans willing to follow them. The bottom line is ... while anarchy has a nice theoretical ring to it; its implementation, because it rules out consensual government, must inevitably lead to disaster.
  
  As to juveniles, again broad brushes do not apply. As a "group", they do not exhibit the same level of mature judgement as the "group" of adults who are over 25 (the time the brain finally stops developing in men; woman finished earlier ... at about 21). But, almost everything in nature follows a bell curve meaning there are many instances when juveniles make better judgements than supposed adults, especially female juveniles. Granted, the laws are made based on the averages, which they should be.
  report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  It is no wonder that many of you struggle with an amendment that consists of only one sentence; that expresses only one idea.
  
  Obviously, none of you who have shared your "happy hour" opinions about anarchy have ever schooled yourself on the subject.I highly doubt that you have ever read the works of Emma Goldman, Henry David Thoreau, or Errico Malatesta. These, and many others like them were very intelligent people; far from possessing the "juvenile mentality" you have ascribed to me here. You remind of African slaves who did not want freedom because they were afraid: fearful that they would not have shelter, or be able to find a paying job, or be able to feed themselves. Although these were legitimate concerns, they could only be counted under the potential cost of freedom, not as reasons to remain in bondage. You who have commented here without knowledge reveal that you are also afraid of freedom, and that your desire is to be ruled by government your entire lives. So be it! I am better than that.
  
  Imperialist, capitalist democracies have delivered two of the bloodiest, and most costly wars in the history of the world, not to mention the genocide perpetrated upon this continent, as well as the imperialist aggression that continues throughout the Middle East. All of these things prove that so-called democratic governments do not work for the proletariat, nor do they elevate the general state of mankind. In fact the United States is not truly a democracy. In practice, we can clearly see a democracy on paper that functions in the real world as an oligarchy.
  
  Concerning anarchy in France: Anarchy never gained a foothold in France, and was never a "way of life" as has been suggested here. There was an anarchist movement prior to the French Revolution. There was also chaos during the "Reign of Terror". The uneducated have combined these two distinct features into one. Consequently, claims that anarchy existed in France for a while and then failed is only a popular fiction. We cannot entertain the ridiculous notion that the French proletariat, mostly uneducated peasants, would have been able to make the transition from servitude to a free society completely on their own, and over the course of just a few years; no more than we can suggest that it is impossible for a man to live alone in the wilderness, simply because a city dweller got lost in Yellowstone National Park and starved to death! A society must be educated, and must learn how to exist in harmony, with solidarity of purpose, without government; just as a man must be taught how to survive in the wild.
  
  The reason that an oligarchy, or so-called "democracy' is so appealing to a majority is because they do not have to think, or take serious action. All they have to do is vote, (just add water) and everything is taken care of. The government, or ruling body makes all of the decisions for them. As long as they have drugs, alcohol, automobiles, hamburgers, football, and shopping malls, they are content to remain in bondage; breeding like rabbits, and producing generations of slaves for the ruling elite. Cows, rabbits, sheep, monkeys, and goats are all very cute. But I have no desire to be counted among them. After many years I have come to realize that misanthropy is an acquired taste.
  report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Human frailties". Sounds like a PC version of "mental illness" to me. If we change the name to something it really isn't the problem goes away.
  
  Much like calling an "illegal alien" (citizen of a foreign country residing in the US illegally) an "undocumented immigrant" (citizen of a foreign country residing in the US illegally). The first is closest to the facts, but the second sounds so much better and removes most of the negative from the label. It arouses sympathy, just as "human frailties" does, which is far more important that discussing facts is any more.
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Although there are Bad Seeds within every group, "Undocumented Immigrants" are Human Beings and Deserve the Respect & Dignity" of such ~ The VAST Majority cross our borders seeking a better LIFE and that's an inconvenient FACT for the GOP ~
  
  Republicans try their very BEST to DEMONIZE & De-Humanize these Hard Working Earthlings which is Pathetic & Disgraceful considering many if not ALL their Ancestors more than likely Obtained Citizenship or the Equivalent thereof the same way ~
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but there ARE no "undocumented immigrants". An immigrant to the US is required to have documents; to have none means they are not an immigrant regardless of how hard the flaming liberals pretend they are.
  
  If they don't want to be demonized, let them follow the law like the rest of us. And no, not everyone's ancestors illegally snuck across a border in the middle of the night. The vast majority came quite legally, and have followed the laws reasonably well. Your crude insinuation that all immigrants are, and have always been, in fact, illegal aliens is completely without merit.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Yes, we can see that these "kinder,gentler" terms have been popular in America for hundreds of years.
  It is often said that Columbus "discovered this continent", when in fact it had been discovered tens of thousands of years previous. In truth, Columbus "invaded this continent".
  
  We have also heard the phrase "mob mentality" to describe the behavior of large groups of people celebrating the lynching of black Americans, public executions, or police brutality. However, if we review the definition of "psychopath" we see the following:
  
  A disregard for laws and social mores
  A disregard for the rights of others
  A failure to feel remorse or guilt
  A tendency to display violent behavior
  
  Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.
  
  We can see from this definition that a great many Americans have over the last 200+ years exhibited "psychopathic tendencies". The "mob" element simply gives an individual the freedom to reveal his true nature with impunity. In other words, his behavior is not "created" by the mob itself, as the term "mob mentality " implies. But it has never been Politically Correct to label large groups of racist white Americans as psychopaths, in spite of the fact that they fit the definition. Just sayin.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The whole Spanish movement to come to the new world was about divide and conquer, especially once they found the natives had gold. That's why they were called Conquistadors. Columbus changed the whole world order of that time. The same thing happened in this country once gold was discovered, only it was in the name of Manifest Destiny.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  You help to clarify a point. Although every European that came here wasn't mentally ill, the record shows that a great many were. In spite of what many believe today, the love, and the lust for money is not just a matter of greed, but it is also a symptom of mental illness. And it is a sickness that has been passed from one generation to the next. We see in a large segment of the population that these symptoms are combined with a genetic predisposition for violence, which is evident in the sadistic psychopathic behavior displayed throughout American society. Movies and television programs that depict murder,rape, and violence against women and children are viewed as "entertainment". The police are not taught to subdue suspects, but to shoot to kill; even in situations where there is no imminent threat to the police. This was made clear with the murder of James Boyd by Albuquerque Police in 2014. It can also be seen in the 2015 murder of Walter Scott who was shot in the back by a cop in South Carolina; unarmed and running the other way! There are many other examples of this kind of psychopathic behavior; before and since.
  
  The current white on white violence reveals not only the psychopathic behavior of the shooters, but it also reveals something about gun proponents. A sane person does not advocate violence, simply because violence only begets more violence. The current level of violence in America today is proof of that. The lovers of the Second Amendment will spend a great amount of time and effort defending their right to bear arms, but it is safe to say that not one of them has spent 5 minutes advocating for more research into the cause, the prevention, and the cure of mental illness; the very illness that leads to violent behavior. The reason is painfully obvious: The militant gun advocates suffer from the same illness as the shooters! They all exhibit psychopathic tendencies. The only exceptions would be whites and minorities who have found themselves caught in the middle. Consequently, their desire to arm themselves is purely defensive. But those who are fascinated with the gun culture, such as NRA members, and those who hunt for "sport", are very sick individuals. The mass shootings have left them foaming at the mouth, and have presented an opportunity for gun lovers to promote their twisted logic, and to gain converts.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  wrenchBiscuit:
  
  One of the problems with law enforcement today, is that many of them have been trained to use the same tactics that are used in the military. It's called the Use of Force Triangle or the Use of Force Continuum. It goes like this. A person is apprehended for whatever the reason may be. They are then given a command to comply. If they don't comply then the use of force is escalated to the next level. It continues escalation to the next level, until the person comes into compliance or they are shot and possibly killed. The problem is there is no context for perspective. They treat everybody the same, regardless of what the prevailing circumstances are.
  
  One guy was driving into a gas station to refuel his car. A police officer observed, he was not wearing his seat belt. So he pulled him over and asked him for his driver's license. He motioned to get his license out of the glove compartment. The officer told him to get out of the car, thinking he was going for a gun. The officer dragged him out of the car and shot him twice. He than got on his phone and called the incident in. He told the guy to remain calm as he was screaming from his wounds. There are many incidents that occur like that. The latest one is the teenage student in South Carolina who was thrown across the room for non-compliance. His boss, the sheriff admitted that he used the Use of Force Continuum. He was angry at the officer, because he said once you touch the person, you are never supposed to release them. He didn't even mention the injuries that the girl sustained from such a violent act.
  report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  fact is that human shortcomings like rage are VERY different from mental illness. anyone with more than a passing knowledge of mental illness knows this. you have a wonderful chance to educate yourself here. try not to write it off.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Persistent and uncontrollable rage is a symptom of several mental illnesses.
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  where are you getting this?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder
  report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  intermittent explosive disorder involves sporadic angry episodes. other than that, anger is not a feature of any of the big five major psychiatric diagnoses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, major depression, and generalised anxiety disorder).
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  anger is not one of the descriptors for antisocial personality disorder. i don't work with children, so you get a pass for oppositional defiant disorder.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I'm not a professional. This is from DSM-5, under Antisocial Personality Disorder:
  
  Callousness
  : Lack of concern for feelings or
  problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about
  the negative or harmful effects of one's actions on
  others; aggression; sadism.
  d.
  Hostility
  : Persistent or frequent angry feelings;
  anger or irritability in response to minor slights and
  insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
  report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Or its the obvious sign of uncontrolled free will , Lack of impulse control.
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  there is much anger that's got nothing to do with mental illness.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, there is much anger that has nothing to do with mental illness, but you stated before that rage is different from mental illness when, in fact, anger and aggression are a criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, for example.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I realize I'm speaking from a lay viewpoint rather than a medically professional one, but I'd say that a person so unable to control their emotional reactions as to commit mass murder of innocent people or children simply to "relieve" their distress is very ill indeed.
  report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  most mental illnesses have nothing to do with anger, and lumping sick folks in with homicidal evil-doers isn't at all fair.
  report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I believe I DID state it was a lay opinion in another post, not a medical one. And I stand by it; anyone that cannot control their emotions enough to prevent slaughtering school children has a rather severe mental problem.
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  not sick, evil. there's a difference.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Abnormal, then. Mentally abnormal to the point of needing psychiatric care to prevent harm to themselves or others.
  
  But no - the people sick enough to mass murder in a school are not just evil. There is something wrong inside their brain. They're not demon possessed, Satan doesn't have control; there is something different and wrong with them.
  report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  sadly, your views are shared by many, but don't fit with the practice of modern psychiatry. these sort of views put truly sick people in the same category as monsters.
  report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I find it just as sad that you separate out some of the mentally ill (that do mass violence) and call them "evil" and "monsters" as if the label means they don't need help.
  report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  just because someone has issues that can't be defined as mental illness doesn't mean they can't be helped.
  reply report
79
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
"The untold secret in Washington is that he has all the laws he needs to stop the bloodshed now. Under the existing federal gun laws, he could take every felon with a gun, drug dealer with a gun and criminal gangbanger with a gun off the streets tomorrow and lock them up for five years or more," said NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.

That is the truth. We have good gun laws in place but the Obama Administration refuses to enforce them. He waits till there is a crime committed that will help promote the socialist agenda in hopes of creating more gun laws. Mr. Obama is not acting presidential for not enforcing the gun laws and taking dangerous criminals off the streets and locking them up.

His prison reform is a failure too. Instead of criminals doing time in prison they are put on probation and allowed to kill again. Those that do go to prison are getting shorter sentences, no rehabilitation, and set free to break the law again.

This has been going on since the Clinton Administration and it will continue if Hillary gets in office. She is campaigning for more gun laws. She is not asking the president to enforce the more than enough gun laws that are on the books.
reply report
1. 0
  Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You're correct. Current gun laws need to be enforced with vigor. Leave the 2nd Amendment alone!
  reply report
  79
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, there are a great many gun laws that have been passed by congress. All Obama needs to do is enforce the ones we already have on the books. That involves rounding up all the criminals which could be done by the police. Obama's Prison Reform is a total failure and an assault on America.
  reply report
2. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You give the president too much power. All of those laws have to passed by congress. All he can do is make recommendations, which he already has. It's our congress that has been bought off by the NRA in this case.
  reply report
73
cheaptrickposted 9 years ago
This is a provocative post that defeats its self.Quote:"they have to protect themselves from the mentally ill'...With what?Ever notice how mass shootings seem to always happen in gun free zones;That;s a preview of what will happen when you take guns out of the hands of law abiding people...cause criminals don't obey the law (by definition) and there are almost as many guns in America as there are people.Making guns illegal will only serve to disarm law abiding people.The police respond within minutes 'AFTER' the crime occurs so what is a citizen to do?Arm yourselves and educate your kids from an early age.
Question: How many people would have died in Aurora if those theater goers had been armed?
Answer: Two...the first victim...and the loony tunes gunman.
reply report
1. 86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No, a preview is the the low rate of death by gun in Europe.And don't say they make up for it by other means ... they don't. There isn't one European country that has a higher violent death rate than America, regardless of intent or means. WHY IS THAT?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  My Esoteric: Great question, with a very simple answer. They don't have a 2nd amendment. Europe has moved on from this archaic right that served them well when they had monarchs and despots who could inflict real tyranny on the people. We use it today to sell guns and ammo to people who have been brainwashed into thinking there is an ever increasing threat of tyranny and a need of self protection against a country and a people who are out of control...Of course some people are gun collectors and hunters as well.
  
  Most of these people are in denial that we don't live in in 1791. However, we have an Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard, and National Guard that serve as our Well Regulated Militia. But they envision themselves as Minutemen coming together as they did during colonial times.
  
  They have lost the trust of this country to protect them and also believe that it could turn against them; therefore they use the 2nd amendment to bear arms against all those who could be a threat to them, just like in colonial times...and that right shall not be infringed upon. Therefore, our violent death rate is higher than any European country, because everybody has the right to bear arms whether legally or illegally, with no distinction between criminals and the mentally ill who commit mass shootings.
  
  To put it very plainly, they don't trust this government to protect them and it could also turn against them. Therefore, they have the right to bear arms against those that could be a threat to them.
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, PeoplePower, I am a Proponent of the 2A, I am just an Opponent of free access to guns by anyone who wants them regardless of their proven propensity to misuse them either on themselves or others.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nor is there a single country anywhere, or any large group of countries, that can show a low gun ownership rate results in a low overall murder rate
  
  WHY IS THAT?
  
  I will give you an answer; because killers kill, with or without guns. Take the guns and they will used something else. But if you don't like to believe that statement, propose another reason for the 100% lack of correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. Or for why real life experience from countries that confiscate guns don't show a drop in homicide rates.
  
  It's real odd how that simple fact is glossed over; how people pretend they don't know it, haven't heard or seen it. So I will ask you the same question:
  
  WHY IS THAT?
  
  Because the objective isn't to reduce the murder rate but instead to take guns from the populace?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Widerness: That's part of the paranoia...no body wants your guns. They want accountability for all that possess weapons. It is done in other countries without a problem. The U.K. has done this very successfully. I know you understand, the 2nd amendment allows everybody to possess arms whether legally or illegally, it doesn't matter. It has no provisions for accountability of arms. This is from the U.K. Guide Book on Firearms.
  
  "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]."
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nice sidestep, but it very neatly points out what I said: that no one wants to acknowledge that taking guns DOES NOT prevent homicides. It is a forbidden subject, to be hidden the corner and ignored.
  
  How about we discuss that, instead of saying that without guns, killers in Britain don't use guns?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Those are false equivalences. Gun killings are a subset of homicides. By definition, homicides are killings of human beings by whatever means, including guns. Therefore it follows, if gun killings are reduced, then homicides are also reduced. That's just simple logic.
  
  I didn't say that killers in the U.K. don't use guns. Here is what I quoted from the U.K. firearms guide book.
  
  "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]."
  
  If you would have read it correctly, it says firearms offences continue to make up a small proportion of less than .2% of recorded crime.
  
  You just assume there guns have been taken away, but that is the opposite of what the facts are. Every Brit can have guns, but they have to be licensed and registered with the local police departments. Any transactions have to be approved by the local police departments. After so many years, the license expires and has to renewed. See it's called accountability.
  
  You people are so afraid that you are going to have your guns taken away, that you jump to conclusions. Every gun possessor in the U.K. bites the bullet, so to speak because it ensures the safety of the people. They have devolved from the 2nd amendment, even though in the middle ages, they were instrumental in the framing of the Magna Carta. We have not been able to do that for so many reasons that have been pointed out in this forum.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, PP, but your "logic" has more holes than swiss cheese. If a subset goes down, but another goes up, the total remains the same and no lives are saved. That's how logic goes, not by pretending once more to ignore the relevant fact that killers kill with whatever tool they can get their hands on. Or none at all.
  
  The UK - who cares that there are few guns used in the UK if it hasn't saved any lives? Again, that's the point that you wish weren't there, but it is.
  
  Yes, every Brit can have a gun...but the requirements are so stiff that no one does. Guns are thus removed from society while pretending that they aren't, followed by a silly claim that has nothing to do with the subject.
  
  So...again, why take guns (even just "control" them to the point that it isn't worth the effort anymore) if it doesn't have any effect on the murder rate? Let's talk about that instead of ignoring it and beating around the bush with irrelevant subjects. Why take (control) them if it doesn't do anything?
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Wilderness, your logic is illogical. It presumes that 100% of the people who want to kill with a gun, will do so even if a gun is not available; meaning they will find a knife, get up close and personal and stab their intended victim to death while the victim let's him or her. Or, will find a nifty poison and figure out a way to administer it; or how about figuring out a way to torch the victim; or maybe simply beat him to death.
  
  Is that your position?
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Barring the ridiculous 100%, yes. There is NO correlation between the number of guns and the number of murders. Fewer guns (or more "control", like PP says) does not mean fewer murders.
  
  But before you apply "common sense" to refute the results of a mathematical study, think about trying to prove the opposite from real life examples rather than just saying "Can't be so!". Because it isn't "logic" that makes that statement, but hard statistics from all over the world.
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you limit your analysis to murders? What is wrong with all deaths or do murders only count as people killed by guns?
  
  And yes, you are right, while the statistical relationship between rates of gun ownership and rates of Murder is not as strong as I like as a statistician, it is close enough to tell me it is more likely than not that there is such a relationship.
  
  The same thing can be said about Robbery, except the relationship is reversed, more guns, less Robberies. Nevertheless, the strength of the correlation is about the same as it is with Murder.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Baloney. If you are a statistician as you claim (and have actually checked), you know very well there is absolutely no correlation between the two. Not "close enough to tell me it is more likely than not that there is such a relationship."; it is absolutely non-existent.
  
  Go collect the data. Graph the results. Then try to find a correlation. I did just that, and there is NO correlation at all. You're a statistician; find that equation allowing us to go from one set of data to another. Find the deviation in the results. And you will very quickly discover there isn't one; that knowing gun ownership rates cannot even begin to predict what the homicide rate is. That the expected deviation from actual values is greater that the values themselves, and a dice roll gives as much chance of picking the correct number as any equation you can come up with.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Also, more guns, more bad boys being killed. I would like to see the ratio. Good riddance to the rubbish!
  Just stating raw figures does not tell a true story. Like those that insist the U.S. has to be the most dangerous and corrupt place because we have a larger percent of the population in jail than other countries. Latin America has a much higher crime and murder rate. They don't put that many in jail. A lot of the prison population is those that did nothing put speak out against a tyrannic gov. Cuba cleaned out the worst in their jails and sent them here in the past. Lets do a trade. A lot of bad people come over our southern border along with the good but illegal people.
  I would much rather have the crooks in jail then running around free. Also, I would rather the good people have a lot more guns than the bad.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Also, more guns, more bad boys being killed. I would like to see the ratio. "
  
  Well, that's kind of the point - there IS no ratio to be seen. The gun haters always pretend there is, and give lots of flawed reasoning to show how it has to be there, but are forever unable to show actual experience where it is.
  report
  73
  cheaptrickposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I'm glad you brought the incarceration thing up.I'd like to add this anecdote;A friend said America has more people in prison than even China which is true,But let's compare;If you get caught with a bag of marijuana in America you'll get a fine,community service and some jail time.If you get caught with the same bag of marijuana in Chine...they shoot you in the head which tends to lower their rate of incarceration,then they make your family pay for the bullet that killed you...then they harvest your organs for resale...I personally would like to hang on to my kidneys,my heart,my liver, and my gonads(I'm rather fond of them) even when I'm dead!
  Then we have the other extreme;very light sentencing for extreme crimes in most industrialized nations.Look at the UK for instance.Commit first degree murder and get a fifteen year sentence,out in seven...and no death penalty regardless of How heinous the murder...so the UK has a lower incarceration rate as well;So do many other industrialized nations.So take your pick;A bullet in the head and goodbye gonads or do your worst knowing you'll get off light...or come to America and see what life without the possibility of parole is all about...cause that has got to suck
  report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  wilderness, Doug ~
  
  I understand the FACT that most republicans REJECT Science, Earth ERODING Climate Alteration and Related Subjects, but Basic Arithmatic Dictates a Mathematical Certainty of the FOLLOWING ~
  
  A REDUCTION in the Number of Circulated Guns on a large enough scale will Result in a REDUCTION of Gun Violence which includes Murders ~ Less Guns = Less Murders Period ~ DON'T try to Argue with me, Argue with MATH ~
  
  Using your Severely Flawed Logic, WHY fix the Brakes on your Car when a FLAT Tire could Kill you?? ~ Sounds just like "Why Restrict & Reduce the Number of Guns when an individual could pick up a Cappuccino Maker with Mal-Intent?? ~****
  
  There are over a Billion Untesils an individual could use to do harm, however, very few like a GUN, which is Legal to own, are Specifically Designed to be Efficient in Killing ~
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No, no. A simple statement of opinion, unsupported by factual evidence, is not a FACT. Prove your statement with real life examples to make it factual.
  
  Nor does MATH show anything but the opposite. MATH very plainly shows that there is zero correlation between the number of guns and the number of murders regardless of how many times you claim it does. If your claim is correct, then use that MATH to prove it, not just say it is so.
  
  But you can't, can you? So you keep on making false claims without any supporting evidence and think people will believe it. Nice try, but as always a futile one.
  report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  The right that they fear losing the most is not the right to protect themselves from criminals, or tyrannical governments, but the right to kill. Period! An ex- police captain (white) killed another man (white) for throwing popcorn at him in a theatre here in Florida! Chad Oulson, 43 was murdered by the miscreant because Chad was texting his 3-year-old daughter’s babysitter, and Curtis Reeves was annoyed at him for texting in the theatre. This happened earlier this year.
  
  The verbal confrontation escalated and Chad threw popcorn at Reeves. Reeves, claiming that he feared for his life, and was only "standing his ground", responded by shooting Oulson, and also wounding Oulson's wife in the process. A man is dead and will never get to see his daughter grow up because an ex-cop was exercising his right to own and carry a gun. If he were participating in this forum, I am sure this lunatic (now out on bond) would be crying and whining about his second amendment rights too! The only good thing about the story is the victim is white. Consequently, the racist white jury that gets picked may still find Reeves guilty of murder.
  
  How much more proof does Oulson's wife need that her husband is dead? Curtis Reeves is like many gun supporters. They live in a state of fear and "what if". When we look up the definitions of "paranoid" and "psychopath", we see they directly apply to the shooter. Take a good look at the picture. She will never smile like that again.
  report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "The right that they fear losing the most is not the right to protect themselves from criminals, or tyrannical governments, but the right to kill. Period! An ex- police captain (white) killed another man (white) for throwing popcorn at him"
  You think you know!
  Try the real reason the buffalo became almost extinct. Yes,. the gov. did try to kill off the buffalo. Not for your quote: "solely to starve out the Indians". There were the ranchers, the railroad and the hunters also.
  You have cherry picked a statement here and there and put you spin an it.
  
  Another: You "Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011,"
  facts: In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.[7] According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.[9] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[10] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun.
  How many of those suicides would have happened anyway by some other method if guns were not available? How many of those remaining 8,855 were death to the perf.? Who I could care less about!
  
  No figures on how many of those other guns were actually assault weapons Maybe you can enlighten us. What is your definition of an assault weapon or an automatic anyway?
  
  What happened to your Jesus side. "Love your enemy and neighbor" Instead you are full of rage and hate. What about your "More human than human drivel?
  report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Doug, many of your comments simply don't make sense. I am on my way to save many lives, and to save the taxpayers of this county millions of dollars, but I will handle this before I go.
  
  First of all , you didn't address my post at all. You evaded the issue and used your reply as an excuse to attack my character and credibility. But I am not moved. There are many who become angered when a brighter light casts a shadow on their own. A beautiful woman has no need to apologize for her beauty, nor does an intelligent man need to pretend he is something less in order to pacify the ignorant.
  
  You commented: Yes,. the gov. did try to kill off the buffalo. Not for your quote: "solely to starve out the Indians". There were the ranchers, the railroad and the hunters also.
  
  First we see that you agree with my comment that the government purposely decimated the buffalo in order to break the native resistance. But then you immediately disagree! In the real world we can only agree, disagree, or be undecided. There are no other options, and these are all mutually exclusive. Whatever role the ranchers, railroads, and hunters played only helped to further the governments cause. For you to hold that statement up as "proof" that the government didn't do something, after first agreeing they did, is truly remarkable.It has a "dizzying" effect. It is not "cherry picking" when we stick to the pertinent facts of an argument. My point was directed at the government, and what I stated is a well known fact.
  
  I find it humorous how many of you like to accuse someone of being filled with " rage and hate" whenever they speak out against evil, immorality, and injustice. An what is it that you are filled with? Are you suggesting that I am filled with hate because I referred to an old man as a miscreant; a man who felt privileged enough to kill someone over a bag of popcorn? Hating the evil works of men is right in step with Jesus. Anyone who has taken the time to read the teachings would know this.
  
  In Matthew 6:24 Jesus said: "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon.
  
  Both Love and Hate can be either positive or negative. It simply depends on the context and the application. If black Civil Rights leaders had not hated a system of white supremacy, they would all still be sitting in the back of the bus. But thankfully today, we are seeing that those seats are being reserved for the racists themselves. Read and learn. Be thankful that I am here among you.
  report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Now why would you say it was throwing popcorn and then go on to provide data showing that the popcorn was only an excuse - the real problem was an escalating fight over refusal to follow theater rules and disturbing the movie for others?
  
  Is there some reason for that? Is it the same as for saying no one wants to take guns or for saying the only use for a gun is to kill something (tell that to Olympic biathlon contestants).
  report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Typical republican, Arguing with Science & Mathematical Certainty ~ NOW that's a FUTILE Endeavor ~ Sorry wilderness, but you are simply WRONG ~ My proposal is SUPPORTED by MATH while yours is a Guessing Game at best ~
  
  REDUCE the Number of Guns Nationwide and Gun Violence will Decline, and that's a FACT ~ I'll accept FUNDAMENTAL Mathematics over your Clureless CONservative Heros like Sean Hammerhead, Bill O'reilly, Ann Coulter etc who are in this GAME strictly for the MONEY ~
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Here are the numbers that destroy all of your theories. When I want to know something, I do a little research. This is one good reason why my arguments are superior. Another good reason is that I am closer to God.
  
  • The United States has 4.7 homicides per 100,000 per year.
  • More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars
  • Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22.
  • More than 80% of the killings in the US in 2011 were gun related.
  
  Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data. But this year gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths. That's according to a Center for American Progress report, which cites CDC data that shows guns will kill more Americans under 25 than cars in 2015. Already more than a quarter of the teenagers—15 years old and up—who die of injuries in the United States are killed in gun-related incidents
  
  In sharp contrast to the United States, Japan has eliminated nearly all forms of gun ownership. That amounts to o.3 homicides per 100,000. Gun homicides amount to about 2 per year! The population density of Japan is 336 people per square kilometer. Population density in the United States was 34.56 psk in 2013, according to the World Bank. WOW! In other words, to cite the fact that the United States has more homicides because it is the larger country is nothing but B.S..
  
  http://www.cityam.com/1414945475/hong-k … aces-earth
  
  http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa … hs/260189/
  
  http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st … says-colu/
  
  http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a … ne/384440/
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Great! The US has a lot of murders and a lot of gun murders.
  
  Now show that if the guns are removed the murder rate will go down. Use numbers from any country you wish to, but only real life experience, please; not just an assumption that more guns = more murders. And a number of countries, not just cherry picked ones.
  
  You can begin by explaining why Japan, with a gun ownership rate of 0.6 and a homicide rate of 0.5 has very nearly the same homicide rate as Denmark (0.7) when Denmark has a gun ownership rate of 12. 24 times the number of guns = same murder rate. And why Austria, with gun ownership of 34 has the same homicide rate of 0.5. 50 X the guns = same murder rate. Or why Romania has about the same guns (0.7) but a murder rate of 1.9. Same guns = murder rate X 3.
  
  Explain, please, the mathematical correlation between guns and murder rate among those 4 countries. But don't try to talk total murders - it is the murder rate and gun ownership rate that counts and disabuse yourself of the quaint notion that gun deaths is the topic; it isn't.
  
  "Superior argument" my eye: all you have shown is that the US has a high murder rate and that guns are used in some murders. Both of which we already know. I'll even stipulate that if guns are readily available they are very often used as the tool of choice if it makes you feel better, but that is a far cry from saying there is a correlation, let alone a causal relationship.
  
  http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and- … icide.html
  
  http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmi … e-4-EN.pdf
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  You really should read before framing your argument. You commented: "...all you have shown is that the US has a high murder rate and that guns are used in some murders...". Some Murders? You say some murders yet the figures reveal that 80% of U.S. homicides in 2011 were gun related. WHOA! I would say 80% is more than "some": a word commonly used to imply "not very much".
  
  Splitting hairs with your comparisons doesn't change the fact that we live in the United States; a country with a high murder rate that is associated with gun violence. Neither does all of the gobblygook you have presented change the fact that it's easier to kill someone with a gun than to beat them to death. It's also easier to kill 20 people with an automatic weapon than with a knife, a ninja sword, ballpeen hammer, or a pair of pruning shears. Easy access always leads to mischief.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, most use guns. Now put your "superior" argument skills to work and show that that means more guns results in more murders. Do it with the "superior" research skills you have, and do it statistically with a large number of examples.
  
  Again, I will stipulate that guns are "associated" with a high murder rate. Birds are associated with air movement, too, but are not the cause of wind. Neither does your "logic" of the ease of killing have anything to do with real life - it is an exercise in logic and nothing more as it does not correlate to actual experience. Because of that lack of correlation all it shows is that either the "logic" or the premises are flawed.
  
  So go back to work again, and actually use those "superior" skills to prove a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. Don't just say that the US has both and therefore it is a proven fact, don't pretend that the examples I listed don't exist; prove your assertion that there is a correlation. You might even consider finding the equation that describes one in terms of the other.
  
  Or give it up and slink back into your den of ignorance and denial, for there is no place for either in a debate over whether to limit freedoms of others.
  report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  From my personal OBSERVATION of this Discussion, that appears to be his and every other republican's Illogical Position ~
  
  I've heard it in one form or another ad nauseam here and elsewhere and it goes something like this ~ "WHY Institute Common Sense Gun Regulation when the perpetrators of the crime might use another utensil or apparatus if he/she cannot get their hands on a GUN ~
  
  It's an OLD, Stale, and Tired Excuse to do NOTHING and continue on into perpetuity with the Staus Quo ~ What they don't seem to understand is the FACT that a GUN is Specifically Designed to Kill PERIOD, and it's one of the only Legal Weapons which can be used for EFFICIENT Mass Violence ~
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Here. Here is the Tired Excuse: I don't have to support my crazy accusations because I think they're true.
  
  What don't you seem to understand about guns DO NOT correlate to more murders? This is a plain, simple fact seen all over the world - why is it so hard to comprehend? Just the tiny liberal mind that doesn't want to accept fact when it doesn't match what they want it to be?
  
  If you've heard it ad nauseam and are tired of it, prove it wrong. I proved it right - you do your part and find the error.
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Barring a better analysis of the available data, you get no argument from me in terms of a Statistically Significant correlation between rate of gun ownership and rate of murder, the r2 I get is a "little less" (not a lot less, only a little less) than the 70% threshold I use for a first cut in a test for significance.
  
  But once you broaden your mind to the OTHER 60% of people killed with guns, then the correlation goes up to around 90%, if I remember correctly.
  
  The ONLY way the gun lobby and their adherents can win their point of view is by myopic data analysis.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Can I see your data and math? Those aren't even near the results I got. In fact, I have several times said that for any country with a low gun/homicide rate I can show 2 more that tell the opposite story. Not a single person has ever shown that to be false though more than a few have touted 1 or 2 countries as "proving" the correlation. (Of course, the reverse is true as well: for any country chosen, 2 more can be found that "prove" guns kill. It's called lack of correlation.)
  
  Graphically, there isn't a chance of showing any kind of correlation; no formula could ever fit that curve will enough to give even a 50% chance of predicting one variable from the other, let alone 70% plus.
  
  Now if you wish to include suicides and the tiny number of accidents, the number might correlate. But I'm not interested in violating the rights and freedom of 300 million people to possibly save a handful of people that wish to take their own life. Plus, I think you'll find the same problem with suicides as with homicides; a built in prejudice that the gun somehow causes the suicide and that without it the death would not happen. I haven't tried to show that either way, so can't speak with precision, but I doubt that many lives would actually be saved, and for the same reason that homicides don't go down with gun removal; the tool is not to blame. Someone wishing to suicide will do so regardless of the tool available just as killers will find some other weapon if they can't get a gun.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wliderness: I'll keep it simple. If you have a set of things called apples. That set can contain, red apples and green apples. If your remove some of the green apples, doesn't the set contain less apples?
  
  You are saying that if gun killings go down, those exact same people are going to kill the same amount of people with other means. Therefore the homicide rate stays the same. Therefore, it is a zero sum game...Really? Hasn't the homicide rate by gun killings gone down?
  
  Everything else you have said in your post is your opinion. If you went to the U.K. and you brought your own guns, you would get to keep them as long as they were registered in accordance with the U.K. laws. As a matter of fact, you can even sell or trade them as long as the transactions are recorded.
  
  Again, you are making assumptions.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Here, PP: I'll make it simple. Take 10 green apples out of your bag of apples, and put in 10 red ones. Has the total number of apples changed?
  
  Don't be ridiculous; I didn't say "those exact same people are going to kill the same amount of people with other means." That would be almost as foolish as you claiming that I did.
  
  Still harping on gun killings. If you're knifed to death will you be happy it wasn't by a gun? Who cares what tool was used after they're dead? So what if the homicide rate by gun killings goes down but just as many are murdered - do you really think the dead care?
  
  No, the lack of correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership rates isn't my opinion. It's a simple fact, verifiable by anyone willing to do the work to collect and examine the numbers. Or read the report of someone who has.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Once again you have painted yourself into a corner. You commented: "Because the objective isn't to reduce the murder rate but instead to take guns from the populace?"
  
  Now, I will ask the question that you will never answer: If this is truly the objective, then please tell us why the government wants to disarm the population. Why?
  
  Do you honestly think that the government is afraid of a bunch of hillbillies with sling shots and pea shooters? Word up: This isn't 1776, it's 2015. As I have stated earlier, the government has the option of biological and chemical agents. But what I neglected to mention is that they also have control over the power grids, and the flow of consumer goods: namely food! The Indigenous populations were decimated more by the biological weapon of smallpox , than with the use of weaponry. Furthermore, the buffalo were exterminated for the sole purpose of depriving western tribes of their food source.
  
  The point is: The U.S. government has been down this road before. Your belief that an armed population will be a defense against a tyrannical government is laughable at best. The citizen wouldn't stand a chance in an armed confrontation. Let's face it, even before a shot was fired, the shutting down of power grids, and the disruption of food shipments to local supermarkets would prompt the majority of would-be revolutionaries to come running back to the reservation!
  
  The average American has never had to live without public utilities, and the majority are totally dependent upon supermarkets for their sustenance. Come up the years. Read and learn.
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  wrench - "As I have stated earlier, the government has the option of biological and chemical agents." That's true, the military has weapons we (the people) don't possess. But I've pointed out a number of times that it will be impossible for our government to get a civilian-based military to use such weapons, including tactical nukes, on the populace. Why? Because many serving in the military won't be willing to destroy the homes and livelihoods of their fellow citizens. They'd be willing to fight an insurrection using guns and other military ordinance - yes - but there's a limit to what the military will be willing to do against civilians. I do agree that many citizens who talk bravely now would balk at facing resistance to their armed demands....yes, the government can shut down power grids and such; however, once we reach that point people are fighting at a new level of intensity, and there are many who would stand, and there are some in the military who would join them - others in the military would at the least stand down. The government would be employing mercenaries mostly, mixed in with some military, against a core of gun and guts wielding populace mixed with some military. At the least it would be a sort of standoff, at the most our government would have no choice but to back down barring foreign intervention; that's a different subject.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Did you happen to see the question mark at the end of that sentence? It was not a statement of fact - it was a question. So you your tirade about the might of the US army is meaningless; it has nothing to do with the question.
  
  But can you offer any other possible, reasonable explanation for the decades long attack on guns from a population that knows it won't help reduce the murder rate? That would answer the question, after all.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  The question mark you are now hiding behind, when taken in context, reveals that it was a rhetorical question that answered itself. Consequently, my comments were justified. Concerning a reasonable explanation: Your question has no basis in fact, and so there is no need to explain. Common sense should tell anyone, that the banning of assault rifles and other automatic weapons will help to reduce the incidence of mass killings, as well as other homicides. People are inherently lazy. Give them enough hoops to jump through and a majority won't even try. If stricter gun control can save just one life, in one year, it will be worth the inconvenience. I am a believer in one. Thus, I am more human than human.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nope - still no comprehension. It wasn't rhetorical at all. It was the only answer that I could think of, but also one that is the antithesis of the liberal claims that removing guns will prevent deaths. A conundrum, then, that the gun haters wish would disappear quietly into the sunset.
  
  And if you think it has no basis in fact, show it. Read the hub I wrote on the subject, and show where it is wrong.
  reply report
  79
  TheHealthGuy LMposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Dearest Wrench - Obviously you haven't served otherwise you'd be more informed about who is actually winning the wars over the last 40 - 50 years.
  
  Vietnam was a loss. We, the American military, outgunned, out strategized and out financed uncle ho yet those raggity assed, black pajama clad little devils known as charlie (and other names) kicked our ass. We carpet bombed them, we killed their leaders, we killed their pigs, goats, burned their villages, burned their rice dumps, blew their weapons caches and the little bastards still kicked our ass. The Vietnamese regulars were tough little ctitters too and much better armed and trained yet it was those Cong that made the war tough. You were never sure who the nemy actually was and he/she could be anywhere.
  
  Do you think we really won in Afghanistan? They kicked Russia's ass and they kicked ours too. Chem/Bio warfare is nasty, nukes are nasty but will the gov't use them here? Maybe, but, I doubt it. To my knowledge we don't even use them against enemies in other countries so the chance of using those weapons on American soil is almost nill.
  
  What I am saying is tht a well armed, trained force of patriots isn't going to be a "pushover," especially since many of those patriots are former military, many of which are highly trained. But ...
  
  Y'all think what you will. Sheep are blind and easily brainwashed. Others are simply cowards. And think about this ...
  
  IF the 2nd Amendment is NOT a deterrent, if millions of gun owners are insignificant why is it that the gov't has been trying to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, change it, brainwash people into thinking it is only for allowing the gov't militias (FBI, State, and local police, National Guard, etc), who are gov't controlled and why do they want to take our guns?
  
  Listen closely, use your brain (read the original 2nd Amendment and what Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams and others had to say about it and the right to own and bear arms) and then consider this ...
  
  An Armed Populace Will Not Be Enslaved Totally nor Go Peacfully To The Death Camps.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Good point. Actual experience in the real world is worth a thousand stories and deductions from flawed assumptions. Any time the populace is well armed and willing to fight, it is found difficult to impossible to subdue it.
  reply report
  73
  cheaptrickposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Do you really not see that they would be disarming the responsible people and not the criminals?Really?...Really?...Really?
  "Remember,when seconds count the police are only minutes away".
  Let that sink in.The police come AFTER a crime not before!What is so hard to understand about that?
  I realize it's 'cool' to bash the American people these days but,when it comes to oppression,you woefully underestimate us,especially the "Hillbillys";We were Born in blood.We are a war oriented society and no,I'm not proud of that fact.History is replete with cases of small groups prevailing against much more powerful foes(please see the American revolution);If that's not good enough check out how even we got our ass handed to us in Vietnam.
  The"Oh,the government is to powerful so let's lay down like sheep"argument is not a part of the American lexicon.Yes we've softened up over the years but when it comes to 'push or shove' the people will not go willingly into oppression because we have no arms.
  Thomas Jefferson was right"Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"...and the time is growing near.Arm yourselves and educate your children from an early age...
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  actually, the intentional homicide rate is about five times lower in europe than the americas. might be due to fewer guns.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … icide_rate
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  But between countries all over the world, that hypothesis proves to be untrue. All the "mights" in the world pale before a little solid investigation and facts.
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  On what data set do you draw your conclusions from?
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It's listed on a hub in my carousel. At the root, though, is a study from the small arms commission the UN uses. I chose data from 2007 (as I recall) as the most recent data available for a large number of countries when I wrote the hub.
  
  We all know data can be, and is, manipulated to produce a desired result. I looked at several sources and chose that one as not only covering a large number of countries but also as one not apparently hired to some group to give pre-ordained results. Neither gun lovers nor gun haters, in other words, but hopefully neutral on the subject. The commission did not even give conclusions, just collected data and presented it, which is exactly what I wanted (and the raw data is shown in the hub as well).
  
  Further data is available from the Australian government on their own buy back program, and while they certainly had a "stick in the fire" to show their program was successful (and the comments sometimes said it was), the data plainly showed otherwise when bias was eliminated.
  reply report
  73
  cheaptrickposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Statistics and sources please...cause your wrong.
  reply report
57
Lazaro DeJesusposted 9 years ago
Vote whether your pro or anti gun control on my hub. This is an incredible topic for debate.
reply report
1. 78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  i'm pro-gun, but believe in sensible regulation.
  reply report
  73
  cheaptrickposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Liberals so like to profess this need for accountability in gun related issues , That will cure all us gun nuts for sure . But wait , why is it that gun owners are the only ones in need of accountability ?

A serious question , Why don't you require , request this same accountability for all of those in the criminal world?

OR why don't you make accountable this extremely non- accountable justice system , you know the one with the revolving doors ?

Why don't require accountability of the non- existent comprehensive mental health care system you know ,the one within our Obama -Care system ?

Liberals have had eight years to turn the tides of all accountability in our system of government ! Kinda' not working out though , isn't it ? This government has done nothing but grow in size and grow less accountable overall for eight years !

But we still want the most law abiding people , gun owners , to be even more accountable ?
reply report
1. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: That's not what this forum is about. It's not about solving every single problem that you believe is the liberal's fault. What you are doing is distracting from the main issue. It's about the 2nd amendment. You have taken the idea of accountability and applied it to everything except what this forum is about. You have used a technique that politicians use. When asked a question they don't want to answer, they say, "The question you should be asking instead of a should be b."
  
  Nice try, but I'm not playing your game. But I do sense your frustration!
  reply report
  79
  TheHealthGuy LMposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Well here, sense this peoplepower ...
  
  IF you're an American you should be ashamed of what you think about the 2nd Amendment. And I can pretty well guarantee that IF you, along with others like you, ever succeed in your aspirations that you will have to deal with some very pissed off patriots who love this country, the Constitution and completely despise those who would trample the rights given to us by our founding fathers via the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
  
  IF you are a Brit you should keep your Brit thoughts to yourself because we made it perfectly clear that we didn't care for your thoughts in 1775/76 and for the most part that same position holds firm for millions of of us.
  
  IF you're an American you most likely are a liberal and voted for Obama (shame on you). If you served in the military you have obviously forgotten your oath, or worse have sold out.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Why can't we let Archie Bunker rest in peace? The United States is still a British Colony! Here is an excerpt from the first link below:
  
  "The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War."
  
  If anyone cares to read the following links and do the research, they will begin to understand how pathetic all of this patriotic posturing really is.
  
  http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/ha … colony.htm
  
  http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty49.htm
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  THEHEALTHGUY LM: Whoa there cowboy, you are making some pretty strong accusations. First let's look at patriotism. I'm patriotic in the sense that I trust my country to protect me and have in turn protected it for four years in the Air Force and would be willing to protect it again. You on the other hand do not trust your country to protect you and have this fantasy that your country is going to turn on you and that you and a band of minutemen are going to protect the people from tyranny. There are nine more amendments to the bill of rights that serve this country well and I do respect them.
  
  Why because they don't involve guns that were made in 1791. You just don't get it. We live in the 21st century, not colonial times. We live in a republic. That means, this country cannot be ruled by a monarch. We live in a democracy, which means that majority rules.
  
  I'm not a Brit. I have done the research about their gun laws. They had the sense to move from anything like the 2nd amendment after two horrific mass shootings. I am a liberal and I voted for Obama a half white and half black president and that just drives you crazy doesn't it? That's really what all of this is about only you people are afraid to admit it. Did you feel there was a conspiracy when W was in office? I bet not. I haven't sold out anything but you have, because you don't trust your country to protect you.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I was under the the impression we were a republic. Maybe now since the libs are in we are a democracy.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Doug Cutler:
  
  We are both a republic and a democracy. We are a republic in that we are a sovereign nation. That means we can't be ruled by a monarch or a despot, or even tyranny. We are a democracy in that the majority rules by representation of the people. That's why we have a bicameral system of government, comprising the house of representatives and the senate. It has nothing to do with conservatives and liberals.
  reply report
  79
  TheHealthGuy LMposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  peoplepower73 - First off thanks for your service. BUT, obviously you have forgotten your oath or at least the part that states" that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" - THAT means the 2nd Amendment and here we find you wanting to change, or nullify that portion of the Bill of Rights, part of our Constitution.
  
  You declare to be patriotic yet assume that I live in a fantasy world because I know what Washington, Jefferson and Adams clealy stated about tryanny and why "we the people" should be armed? I suggest you invest more time reading what our founding father's knew would eventually happen and then take off your rose colored glasses and take a hard look at what HAS happened in our country since the Civil War.
  
  I won't even address your insinuation of racism because Marines only see green. I couldn't care less about Obama's color. What I do care about is his complete and total failure as commander and chief since being elected. Yet, we haven't had a great President in over 50 years.
  
  Another thing I care about and find extremely disenchanting is the fact that so many people, including you, seem to think that our current, past (50 years) government couldn't possibly be wrong or have any agenda that may endanger the lives and or liberties of "we the people." Especially since our founding fathers WARNED (an actual command) everyone to be watchful. Yet it isn't just you who have left your post without being properly relieved (Gen Order #5). You, like MILLIONS of others have been so brainwashed by past administrations, their minnions, the media (print and tv) that you actually believe you are right to follow along like a good puppy and have never read, or have forgotten the warning orders drafted by our founding fathers. Most of them warned against becoming complacent and ...
  
  IF the 2nd Amendment was never thought to be needed for the protection of the Republic BY the people those 27 well crafted words would never have been included and Congress wouldn't have added a comma to try changing what was meant by the original that did not contain that comma. IF our founding fathers had not realized that any standing army (military) or goverment controlled police force would be used against "we the people" in the even tyranny reared it's ugly head then he last 14 words of the 2nd Amendment " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would have been drafted and adopted is an extremely different form. Anyway ...
  
  I have better things to do than debate with brainwashed folks. So have a great day and when the SHTF just remember it was you and people like you that followed the wrong leader. Because when Americans are disarmed (if ever) you and ALL Americans will be sitting ducks.
  
  Good luck to you, I'm out.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

Anti-gun advocates should rest easily knowing that there are those who will still rise up to save them from their own lack of patriotism when it all comes down, from within or without ! . I always look at the history of liberalism's "intellectuals" that race between the palace's of freedoms in any and every country .They never commit an once of sacrifice to God or country , Constantly calling out the failings of leadership yet constantly "fattening up " on the bennies .

Just like those who conscientiously object to war or violence , until it reaches their own from door -before they escaped to the next free zone that is - never committing an ounce of sacrifice or vigilance to any one political belief. It's the very same thing in America as it was in Roman empirical times , the 'Fat and happy' lives of liberal intellectuals stuffing themselves on the feast of freedom at everyone else's cost .

The battle cry of the pseudo- liberal-intellectual ? " Run to the safety of the palace all , It has begun "
reply report
1. 86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly how do you equate opposition to guns in the wrong hands to lack of patriotism?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  One way is to oppose a separate force that Obama wants to form to do his bidding. Then we patriots
  would definitely be opposed to those guns in those wrong hands!
  Our weapons would be the same as those used by a force, foreign or domestic. This is all spelled in the writings of state militias of the early 1800's The threat to the freedom of the general population is more in jeopardy then before because of those advanced weapons the gov has.
  A number of those advanced weapons will be available because generals and officials will revolt with the freedom fighters.This is why Obama wants his special goon army along with the United Nations army. Who don't care who they kill in this country. Obama has not succeeded in this, as far as I am aware. He certainly has tried. Some high generals and officials were fired a few years back who likely put a stop to his plans.
  
  I have just come off my second, 3 day, banning for speaking my mind and calling one poster a dummy and another two hypocrites. Even though I am called names and slandered. How many of those have been banned also??? Will anyone else admit to being banned? Hubpages will tell you what the offenses are if you ask through the explore -> answers -> ask a question tabs.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  DOUG CUTLER: Where do you get this information that Obama wants to form a separate force? Where do you get the information that generals and officials will revolt? Where are these freedom fighters? Those generals that were fired were not performing based on what the mission was.
  
  Also I want to know what you are smoking?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Underground bases destroyed.
  http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2012 … e-d-u-m-b/
  
  I don't know of any official patriot force. They are hinted at. But I am sure there will be if Obama and company tries something. I suspect a large part of the military will revolt with their arms to the patriot side.
  Do you really think those not willing to follow through with orders to fire on civilians are going to say who they are so Obama can can them? Why do you think he wants ex cons, the united Nations troops and illegals? They will shoot whoever. There has been more high officials getting canned, fired and forced to retire now than ever before.
  
  http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas … ity-force/ Obama's secondary force.
  
  For your info: I do partake of anything other than a few 8oz. cups coffee and a level tea spoon of instant at that. I should report you for slander. I have been banned twice and am prepared to strike back.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So, which one of the current candidates, I presume, GOP do you not fear are going to subject you to tyrannical Government and why? Just curious, is your beef about Government in principle or is it just about Obama?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I am a no party proponent. Both parties need booted and the best person for the job voted in.
  Have you been banned recently. Or am I the only one.
  
  I have many beefs against the gov. Obama has been the most radical. Passes judgements before he knows the facts. He is the racist one.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I had been disfellowshipped by those that shut down opposing ideas in fear of debate.
  
  From your perspective, Obama is a radical. I don't see it that way. Do you not have any political choice or alternative to total anachy?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, A no party gov. where the best person for the job is elected. The founders warned against opposing parties. The new group should go back to the constitution as intended with the amendments. Rewritten using today's grammar. The 2nd should be two sentences. The first for the militia. The second for the people.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Everybody has a different idea of who the best person for the job is, related to ideology, political positions and such. Who decides the best person for the job besides the electorate and that is based upon the majority of the vote. Did not Obama received that designation twice in 2008 and 2012?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Doug:
  
  I went to both of those sites. The first one is full of conspiracy issues. The second is a Fact Check that says the assertion of Obama's secondary
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I submitted it too soon. It should say that the fact check says Obama's secondary force is false.
  reply report
81
oceansnsunsetsposted 9 years ago
I am thankful for our constitution and our bill of rights, etc. The people that had been through all they had, had a point of view that none of us have had to live through. I think we continue to see a decline in our once great country that people seem confused about. I personally don't think its all that confusing. There is a cause and effect we see, that is logical and reasonable. Since the effect is negative, we MUST blame something (I think that is some people's mentality), and so we see the wrong things being blamed time and again. Then wonder at why the proposed solutions aren't working.

They aren't working because truth and logic and reason win out, (with morals attached). Since people don't value these things over their wants and/or their newly found beliefs created by deceptions of various kinds, they will continue to be bewildered and laying blame. (Incorrectly)

Reason, facts and truth don't bend to peoples desires and preferences, and much of mankind just doesn't accept this fact. Thus, much of the problems we see that could be simply avoided. Facts and proofs fall by the wayside and what is esteemed is often untruths. Things that are not true, but held as true all the same. I think these ideas cover in a broad way, a lot of the problems we see in our world, societies and relationships, and governments gone wrong.
reply report
79
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
Meme time!
reply report
1. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  COLORFULONE: Snopes Time
  
  You can believe this or not but conservatives like to accept everything on blind faith especially if it fits their agenda. They also believe and accept everything that Fox News broadcasts Have you every heard of Photoshop? I can Photoshop any kind of meme you want to fit your agenda, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
  
  http://www.snopes.com/nra-hillary-clinton-quote/
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Colorfulone, are lies the only way you think you can win an argument?? http://www.snopes.com/nra-hillary-clinton-quote/
  reply report
3. 60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Another NICE FOX SNOOZE style attempt at total Fabrication Colofulone but ONLY in "Republican PRETEND Land" did George Washington say the Following:
  
  "When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern."
  
  And ONLY in "Republican PRETEND Land" President Obama is a Muslim, he was BORN in Kenya etc etc ~
  
  In the REAL World, George Washington NEVER said that and President Obama is more American than any Fox Snooze Pseudo News Anchor, and of course any individual who knows how to read COMPLETE Sentences written in the QUEENS English understands the FACT that the 2cnd Amendment is actually a BAN on ARMS unless in the MILITARY ~
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know what Washington said or didn't? You and others just want to bash him to suit your leftist agenda. Every thing is a lie unless it matches that agenda. Then it is Gospel truth. That is if you even believe in God.
  
  Obama's mother and his supposed father married in Hawaii when she was 3 months with child. The birth certificate shown to the public was changed or manufactured for some reason. I think it was to hide the fact who the real dad was or maybe she didn't know. So to avoid looking bad they just let it ride for awhile.
  I think a DNA should be done to settle it. The likely real dad is Davis. All those involved in the cover up should be brought to trial. Including Mr and Mrs Pres.
  
  Obama grew up in a Muslim country. His mom had communist atheist leanings. He probably has no religious affiliation. Neither do I. It is how he uses religion to look good. I think he went to a radical, hate mongering so called Christian church to further his political career. Look how fast he dropped that when running for pres! He seems to have strong Muslim leanings.
  
  If the second was for military only why did the U.S. give out free bullets to the general population to kill buffalo? As Biscuits will verify with his inaccurate rant. That being the "sole" purpose of this was to starve out the Indians. Wrong! That was only one. The others were: The cattle and buffalo were eating the same sparse grass. The railroad didn't want them on the rails. There were to many. The vast majority died of disease. God killed most of them! The shooters were waiting the next year for a huge number to appear. There were very few that survived over that winter. Same thing happened in 1825.
  Before there were a lot of people going west.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  You should author a book about this, if you haven't already. There are plenty of good , god fearing Americans who would find comfort in your "unbiased" historical outlook. A tentative title:
  
  " Cutlers Compendium On The Virtues of Colonialism Vol.1"
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You probably should read your first paragraph, but replace left with Far-Right and then know you got it correct. I bet you still believe the earth is flat too or that the burning of Friar Giordano Bruno at the stake by the Catholic Church for his heretical views on science was an appropriate punishment.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I believe in moderation. Not in the political sense. In the spiritual sense. Ultra right wingers have their problems to.
  I believe in the Constitution. And the founders warning against forming parties. Elect the best person for the job. Get rid of appointing judges and limit their terms. Just like we had to do with other positions.
  
  The old testament talks about the orbs in the sky. An orb is a ball. Not a flat plate. You assume too much about my beliefs. Typical leftist! Attack and discredit even if it is a lie! If it serves the cause then it is alright. Lie to the infidel is acceptable to you?
  
  The Catholic Church is not what I go by. The Muslims now are about where the Catholic Church was then. Hopefully soon they will advance farther than the Catholic Church is today. Some religion is better than none. Accept for those like the after mention. Unless they change a lot.
  
  I am an early Christian like individualist. Believe in the individual saving himself through the working out of karma. Jesus is the savior of all mankind. They may have to go through many life times to realize it.
  
  We, in an imperfect state, have the God given right to self defense and hunt for sustenance. Moderation!
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  DOUG CUTLER:
  
  You said this: "Every thing is a lie unless it matches that agenda. Then it is Gospel truth." I can say that about your entire post. Where do you even get your information? Sources please! I think you might have access to too much conspiracy material.
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  LOL ~ Here we GO Again ~
  
  Um, Doug, the "Burden of Proof" is on YOU to PROVE George said that Ridiculous NONSENSE ~
  
  George " I'll Kick your REAR with a Rag Tag Army of DRUNKS" Washington also said the following ~
  
  "ALL republicans appear to be like Horses REARS in Winter, NO real purpose but to Spit Out CRAP"
  
  NOW Doug, PROVE good Ole' General Georgie didn't say that bit of WISDOM, and how true it RINGS even today ~ As a matter of FACT, I'd wager he said that before he said that 2cnd Amendment NONSENSE ~
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  How does that work? To paraphrase AP in the HP forums: "It is up to the reader to prove what I say is true. They can do their own research!". Does that work only for AP or for all people equally?
  
  (Although commonly attributed to George, the quote is almost certainly not his.
  
  "Edward Lengel, editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington project at the University of Virginia: "There is no evidence that Washington ever wrote or said these words, or any like them." Lengel cautioned that it’s impossible to prove a negative, but he added that he’s "as certain as he can be" that the quote did not originate from George Washington.)
  
  http://news.virginia.edu/content/did-ge … -meme-says
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That is just Edward Lengel's opinion. He didn't disprove it either. Some here will claim it does because it fits their innaccurte belief systems.
  
  George also did not take the peoples arms away as some wish he had. Go 2nd, and we the people!
  Notice: one sentence, two distinct ideas.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  As Lengel said, it is impossible to prove a negative. But I'll still take his word for it until proven otherwise. An internet meme doesn't have much authority as far as I'm concerned.
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  HEY Doug C, Give it Up ~ You know your as WRONG as Lamar Odom Shelling out 75 LARGE for 5 Days at BROTHEL when wilderness stands Shoulder to Shoulder with ME ~
  
  George "I'll STICK a Cherry Tree in your REARend in Hand to Hand Combat" Washington NEVER said what you said he said about Guns ~
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So what he said those things! If he did indeed say them. Prove it! Why are you bring up things that has nothing to do with the 2nd anyway? Just like all those anti republican or anti right rants. Stick to the issue!
  
  I and others here have proven over and over again that there are two groups in the 2nd. In one sentence!
  Even gave an example of one sentence with 2 distinct ideas. You can admit to that fact can't you?
  You have not explained the free bullets to ordinary citizens. Or guns given to ex black military, or guns allowed to be owned by all law abiding groups. Or Washington and other administrations not taking everyone's guns.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Here is an excerpt from the linked article that demonstrates a writer who possess the ability to read and understand.Come up the years. Read and learn.
  
  " ... There is no individual right to own a gun. The Second Amendment guaranteed the right to have state militias. The gun ownership clause was there to make the militia possible. There have been no state militias since 1903, and there is no longer a constitutional right to gun ownership. It doesn’t exist!
  
  The congressional debate over the Second Amendment is most instructive. The overall context was this: The Constitution (1787) had created two institutions new to the United States, a standing army and a president who was also commander in chief. In this combination, many feared European despotism. What if the president made himself a king and used the army against the people? The answer was close at hand. The governors of the states would call out the militia to restore democracy. But in those days, every militiaman was required to bring his own gun. The states didn’t have any. What if the president first took away all the guns? Well, the Constitution would have to say that he can’t, hence the Second Amendment..."
  
  http://www.dsausa.org/there_is_no_secon … t_to_a_gun
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Guess what wrenchbisket ,
  
  Except that , The well illustrated situation of the "militia " then ,was made up of ........."The People " !
  
  The was no more a standing army then , that is without the "people " in it , than there is now ! Welcome to basic English Wrenchbaby !!
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  A separate force in1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
  They tried to get rid of the stated having a separate guard force in 1920. By that time the militia was called The State National Guard. This was defeated and no one had their guns taken either. Again you have cherry picked and assume way too much. We retain the right to own and the states retain their militia now renamed the state nation guard. Working closely with the federal national guard.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, have you heard where Hell is freezing over? They're ice skating and all!
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  In the way that you so venomously hate republicans , one might assume that you didn't realize that by definition the roles of republicans and democrats have been reversed since the beginning of the US.? What juvenile posts you write ,our little revolutionary , or is hatred the singular debating style of lefties?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Lincoln was a republican. When LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act, many of his southern democrats jumped ship and became southern republicans. That was the start of right wing radicalization in the south that evolved into the tea party, which today is called the Freedom Caucus!
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: You didn't answer my questions!
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower , Ask me a serious question without pre-assuming the result and answering them yourself , I'll answer anything you want ! So Shoot ! However be quick , I'm going target shooting with muzzle loaders today !
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You gave me your answer. Those people being murdered senselessly by the mentally ill is the price we have to pay for you and your gun buddies to have the same types of guns that were used to commit those murders. And if there are more to come, and there will be, so be it, as long as you get to keep your guns...and you don't think those are serious questions.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you, on both sides of the issue, move to different states and have the laws changed to suit?
  Oh wait! I think the leftist/libs did that already! When they screwed up California and made it so expensive to live there, they moved to other western states and are trying to ruin those too!
  refrase: Why don't you stay in a state that has opposite laws? Then see which is better. California and some other state(s), completely gun free. Texas and some other(s), anything goes. Then compare.
  Just leave the moderate folk in the moderate states alone.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Just how do you propose to distinguish between mentally ill and not so , seeing's how conservatives are generally conformists and liberals are more apt to be so delusional ? Just kidding , but how do you propose registering those who are or will be mentally ill ? Figure that one out , I'll give you all of my guns
  
  You are of course calling as equal , mentally ill criminals and lawful gun owners ?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Bingo! You just hit the nail on the head. We can't filter out the mentally ill. The current interpretation by SCOTUS says everybody has the right to bear arms, including the mentally ill. Since their weapons of choice are WMDs, all of those weapons have to be registered. Comprehensive background checks, will be part of the registration process, they will be able to filter out those who have mental problems and should not be allowed to have any weapons. It's the price all of us have to pay because we don't know who they are and when they are going to go ballistic, (a weapons term).
  
  I know you don't like new laws, but it has to be a law that is created and controlled by congress.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You lost me there man , , Bingo nothing , previously committed mentally Ill - IS already a check point on the FBI background check , Care to show me where the mentally Ill can legally have guns too ! That one goes over my head . Guns as WMD.s ? Right . There are already numerous checks for gun buyers , had you bought one lately , you would know just what one goes through . The law abiding citizen is already hindered tremendously by the system , The FBI background checks are already mismanaged , at times they are overwhelmed in checks because of under-manning .
  
  Why don't you write a letter to your congressman [woman ] asking why the legal system is in a major mess . Thousands and thousands of " non-violent " drug offenders are about to be released from felony prison terms , The recidivism rate is what about twenty five percent , ask them about that . How many will re-commit crimes .
  
  As a law abiding owner of many guns I can attest to the legal loop holes of criminals ? They don't give a damned about a gun law ! And that includes old laws or new ones ! How do YOU intend to make them ?
  
  This is a man with a gun !
  
  And this one is mentally Ill ? What do you propose to distinguish them ?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If they take all guns, including those stashed away by criminals., then it might work. Fat chance of the crooks giving up theirs. And a tyrannical gov giving up theirs'. And the other countries giving up theirs'.
  Just let us have and go to a state that has the strictest laws. We may have to protect you.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: FBI background checks obviously not working- need fixing - NRA tied their hands and the ATF hands with the Tiahart amendment. Oh! another amendment, only it was your people, Senator Tom Tiahart and Representative John Sensenbrenner, who created it.
  
  The mentally ill don't have to legally own guns. They can have them illegally and still murder people.
  
  The checks for gun buyer are with gun sellers. If they don't hear back from the authorities in 24 hours, they let it go. How about all the guns that are bought and sold in gun show parking lots? How about the ones that are bought on the internet? How about the ones that are bought as straw purchases?
  
  The FBI checks are undermanned because your people cut the funding for them with sequestration by holding the country hostage because they wanted to pay their bills. But the house shutdown the government until they agreed to sequestration.
  
  If the criminals break the law, they should be held accountable. Those laws are not working either. That's why everybody needs to have their guns registered and I mean everybody. I will write my congressman. What are you going to do? Don't tell me, I know... nothing!
  report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower , Knowing that it is senseless to argue logic to leftist's , I'll only say this , I have thirty two guns , all registered legally ! FBI checks on all of them . They spend their days locked in a gun safe unless I am shooting or hunting , . But then I obey the law , .............Do you really believe that your proposed over registration laws will cure anything .?
  
  Do you honestly believe that a drug dealing , gun carrying , back alley gun thief gives a crap about the next gun law or the one after that or the one after that ? Answer honestly please.
  
  Do you honestly think the next mass shooter cares ?
  
  No. I know your answer already , YOU want all guns Gone .
  
  Dream on Peoplepower .I think I'll go look at buying some more .
  report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower , Well Damn , we all know its all the republicans fault ...or rather "You and Your People " .
  
  You see that's the thing with your delusionary responses , It's always someone else's fault , someone else's problem , someone else's solutions . AND mostly someone else's fault WHEN changes in gun laws don't do anything but continue the same insanity .
  
  Get real , get a gun ! At least then you won't feel so victimized by some one else's crime waves !
  report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Just like all those new SSI recipients. Fabricating disabilities to stay or get on the gov's teat.
  Same reason the new voters elected for Obama. Most had never voted before. I am not talking 18-22 year olds.
  Alexander Tytler
  " A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
  This is the main reason he got voted in by low information, me,me me voters. Try taking their guns and see what happens.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So what is it, Doug, you have a problem with Democracy. The franchise has been around at the national level for over 200 years, why are we on this precipice now, according to you?
  
  So, it is a bit arrogant to think that you know more than the electorate, the headwaters of tyranny? I said the same thing about Bush II reelection, why was that not a correct assessment.
  
  So, what is your alternative to the 'low information' voter, who seems to always be associated with the winning candidate at least for the Presidential contests?
  
  The Right is brilliant with this fantasy scenario that they repeat like a broken record but regardless, the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think it inappropriate to elect only when there is a gift for them.They don't care about the constitution.
  Only what is in it for them. You can't convince me otherwise.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody votes for anyone if they don't believe that they don't get something they want in return. Why is it only the Righties that are 'selfless' citizens?
  
  So, what are you going to do about the current system, while you may be formidable in print, you cant change the way things are done without a lot of trouble...
  report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  people with mental illness are not (95%) violent. 95% of shootings are done by people without mental illness. please stop demonizing innocent folks.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower is suffering from a delusional impression that its the mentally ill's fault , its the law abiding gun owners fault , it's the NRA's fault , it's gods fault or the devil . BUT HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGES THE FAULT"S OF PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY , he is of the cloth that feels that Uncle Sam will cure us all of our ill's , it IS the socialist that expects a government office to provide all remedies to social ill's ! Forgive them for they do not know .
  
  You are right though , the mentally ill are hardly in the statistics , ASSAULT weapons are not there either , check out the FBI statistical study on crime , recidivism , and what criminals used and RE_USED in assaults , robberies and murders .
  
  This thread has been all about truth and illusion , Peoplepowers socialistic illusions and the truths of fact , statistics and what's simply right and wrong. Just take a look at the types of people who join the anti- gun , anti- second amendment discussion , who needs comedy when you have such nonsense argumentation ?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahoseback: Do you really want to go there? I feel sorry for you and your kind, because you have been brainwashed by the right wing propaganda machine and they have done an excellent job of convincing you about this country turning against its people. The Fox 24 hour talk radio and T.V. shows constantly hammer key phrases like tyranny, Obama care, Benghazi. They have tried to overturn Obama care 50 times. It's not because they believe they can do it. It's because they don't want you to forget it. Benghazi has been investigated 9 times over a 17 month period. It cost the taxpayer 4.7 million dollars. They know none of those investigations proved anything, but they continue to do it, because they don't want you to forget it. They want you to think Hillary is a liar and caused the death of four Americans. It's a propaganda technique, the more times you hear it the more you will believe it. Your world of Tyranny is only about Obama turning on his country. It's not about the reality that he or any president would not do that. it's about fear to motivate you to buy more guns and to vote as conservative republican, because the liberals and Obama are causing this country to go down the tubes. Talk about blaming one side!
  
  Mark Levin wrote a book called Tyranny or Freedom. It was a best seller and made him a millionaire. You don't get it. It's all about money. Those shows are about getting you to vote republican to increase their voting base. The more people listen to them, the more their ratings go up, the more money they make. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and O Reiley are mega millionaires and they use fear to make you think that this president is going to turn on you. Therefore, you better arm yourself to the teeth, by your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. And who benefits from that? The gun and amo manufactures, gun dealers, and the NRA and the talk shows, and the congressmen who are beholden to them. Wayne Lapierre's salary is a million dollars a year. The republican party is run by the super rich and corporations. They need the people at the bottom of the food chain to increase their voting base so that they can be elected and re-elected. They talk about cutting big government. Government is not self-purging. It is self nurturing. It doesn't matter who is in office.
  
  They want you to think the government wants to take your guns away. How many guns have been confiscated by the government since the 2nd amendment has been ratified? There was a 10 year ban on assault weapons in 1994, but because the NRA and Bush put a expiration date on it, It expired in 2004. I do believe assault weapons should be banned. Don't give me this nonsense about defining an assault weapon. It's like pornography, you know it when you see it.
  
  I have been told in this forum that I am treasonous, unpatriotic, a bleeding heart liberal socialist, and delusional because I don't believe in the gun peoples interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I served in the United State Air Force for four years protecting this country from invasions of Soviet Union bombers. I am not a socialist. I believe our form of government runs best when there is a balance between social programs and capitalism. I believe our constitution protects us from tyranny and I trust our institutions to protect us.
  
  You and your kind love the constitution, but on the other hand, you don't trust the constitution and its institution to protect you from criminals and terrorists. So you have 35 guns of all kinds to protect you from the constitution you don't trust, because you have been brainwashed. You have been deluded into thinking that your government is going to take your guns away and then attack you and your kind. I on the other hand can grieve for those who have been murdered and feel empathy for their families. While you and your kind can only think about protecting yourself from a pretend, delusional tyranny.
  
  Oh I know you can't prove it right now, but you see the trends that are created by liberal socialists. Who is more patriotic, someone who believes in the constitution to protect them or someone who believes they are ready to fight their government as soon as it turns on them? Are you patriotic when all you can think about is protecting yourself from the country you live in by forming a make shift militia across 50 states to fight the might of the United States armed forces? Sorry you have been brainwashed. I don't know how you sleep at night. Oh that's right you sleep with at least one of your AR15's...although in one of your posts, you talked to your guns and answered for them. Who is more delusional..nite, nite, happy delusional dreams!
  
  This is not just for you. It's for those who think like you do as well.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower ,
  Let me explain the "big bad right wing' to all of you,
  
  He has worked every day of his life believing that ,THAT is the basis of our constitutional rights , to work and earn his OWN ,to get what he has , for the chance to achieve some sense of financial security on his own and for his own . He believes that the less that government intrudes in his life , the better . Government is NEVER going to be the provider of anything without taking it from all of the others , and the right winger believes in that strongly ..
  
  That outlook is why we are living in the most advanced , freest , most secure centrally governed land in the world . The right winger wants nothing from everyone else BUT that chance to earn his way forward ! His fear is where socialists are becoming the new policy makers changing the very basis of his hard earned freedoms , becoming a nation of ingrates who demand more from others , who want a bigger part of freedoms and financial security FROM others .
  
  We have reached a major tipping point in America of far less freedoms and more of an enslaved taxation standards , completely at the fault of liberal spending and taxation controls , THAT is your party at work , Gimme , Gimme , is the mantra of the new left ! While at the same time stealing away the personal freedoms of its populace ! Gun controls being simply ,one of hose freedoms .
  
  I have also met many , including SOME veterans, and a lot of leftist's like yourself , who want the same as you do , A government of a BIG DADDY, give me my paycheck , my benefits , my education expenses , my financial security , my ,my, my ............. AND THAT is why people oppose your rants , THAT THE COST'S of your idea's of freedoms come at everyone else's expense . I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR YOUR MORE ADVANCED SENSE OF SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT REFORMS .
  
  Your rants about the second amendments CAUSE , of crime , death and destruction ARE delusional ,
  Your way is to ignore the personal accountability of any one persons involvement ! Again , simply a socialist way of letting Uncle Sam take care of you ! Rather than demand accountability of your already elected and paid for government representation ! In other words , Please let someone else take care of ALL of my problems !
  
  THE LEFT IN AMERICA WANT , NOT ONLY WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION , BUT RESPONSIBILITY RE-DISTRIBUTION , where simply put , NOTHING is your fault and EVERYTHING is yours to gain FROM ALL OF THE OTHERS , AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL THE OTHERS .
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: Thanks for your reply. it really proves that you have been brainwashed. Personal accountability is nice notion in theory, but in reality, it doesn't take into account the factors of human nature, including, greed, corruption, and selfishness, Why do you think we have laws? because people as human beings cannot be trusted to be personally accountable.
  
  The Glass Stegal Act was removed by your selfish and greedy fellow right wing banks and investment companies. This gave them the right to take advantage of home buyers by raising interest rates on sub-prime mortgages, to the point, people couldn't afford to stay in their homes. That money was then packaged into all kinds of exotic investments and that money flowed to the the top of the super rich, greedy, right wing bankers and investment companies.
  
  They created the financial meltdown and the crash of the housing market, which then caused not only our economy to go bust, but the worlds economy as well. Because, many of these exotic investments were sold world wide. Then they asked for a 700 billion bailout that you and I are still paying taxes on. They got away scott free. Nobody went to jail.
  
  I watched 13 hours of the hearings and all they did was get their hands slapped. Why, because they are privileged and there are no laws for white collar crime. You have been ripped off by your own conservative right wing and don't even realize it. They want to do the same with social security. They want to privatize it so bankers and brokers can rip off innocent people who are not savvy investors. They want to privatize medicare, and Obama care so that insurance companies can rip off people even more. They want you to have personal accountability so they can take advantage of you without any laws.
  
  You see it's not about your guns and the very remotest possibility of tyranny. it's about the super rich conservatives beating the drum for less laws, less government, more personal accountability, while they rip you and me off. The difference between your posts and mine is that i give you concrete verifiable examples of what has happened and can happen again. You just spout right wing rhetoric propaganda. By the way, you never answer any of the questions in my post.
  
  If you think people can be held personally accountable without laws you really are delusional. If you think all people can be held accountable with guns without laws, then you are delusional.
  
  I don't think you realize that the slogan "Each to his own, according to his own needs." is part of the Communist manifesto by Karl Marx!
  
  Your last paragraph is exactly what I heard from Sean Hannity's show. As a matter of fact, he uses it for his opening all the time...brainwashing propaganda. I just proved to you, the flow of money is doing just the opposite. Please look up the Glass Stegal Act and the financial meltdown.
  report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  George Washington lamented that political party wrangling "agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another."
  
  Go back to a no party system. There was no parties till the later 1790's. Put God back in. Encourage moral values and work ethics. More personal accountability.
  
  Communism was tried and failed big time, Plymouth Plantation, 1620's. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1285981/posts
  
  Guns are not the biggest problem. Corrupt, greedy, drugged up people are. In and out of gov.
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The problem is that greed is at the heart of it all. I recently watched a experiment on video where a man posing as being blind asked passerby's if they could tell him if his winning scratch off lottery card was a winner. He did it in two different neighborhoods. One was an affluent one the other more run down. The results were the affluent one had the people he approached try to steal the card by telling him it did not win anything. He went to the other neighborhood that was run down and asked two homeless people the same thing. They immediately told him he was a winner. I know it is a small survey but it was quite telling in it's own.
  report
  79
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You and others in the forums must be very patient people.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Actually yes I am patient , I thinking about a "target -shoot- in" for anti- gun people on hubs , perhaps we can convince them of the fun of shooting , of course , I wouldn't want to change their minds or anything !
  reply report
  79
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I like shooting target. I'm not as good as I once was but I don't miss. I had gun safety and rifle training in grade school. Good common sense classes are missing now.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You can't prove he didn't. I will believe what a read elsewhere long before I believe anything you have to say.
  I don't have to prove anything to anybody just because you and Biscuits think so. Educate yourself!
  
  By the way. Did you read up on the true facts about buffalo hunting and the U.S. gov. handing out bullets to the ordinary population? And not taking there arms away! Please learn proper grammar etiquette.
  I am not talking an occasional misplaced punctuation or occasional word misspelled. know what I mean!
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wow , how historic is this rant , your my hero man , I man Georgies boy's were all drunks , where do you get this crap?
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Why all the rightwing banter, Doug. Are you people still harping on that birther stuff? The world of the rightwinger is one of fantasy, you talk about 'taking the country back' but from whom and how? In spite of overwhelming evidence that Obama is Hawaiian born and meets the Constitutional qualifications for being President, the Right continues this inane idea that all the 'experts' were fooled by this guy, Obama, and that Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh know the 'truth'.
  
  There should be more questions about candidate Cruz, but of course the Right seems to breeze right by him.
  
  The world the Right envisions can never been realized in real time. Why do you consistently ally yourself with them? Short of a revolution, the Right can never win, unless that is what they are preparing for, A Revolution?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I did admit to him being Hawaiian born! Just not the phoned up certificate. They are hiding something.
  
  As I said before: I don't like parties of any kind. Just we are stuck with two, possibly three. If I have to pick the lesser of the evils it will be those closest to the tea party. Otherwise why vote?
  
  Generally "Those that don't work shouldn't eat" Apostle Paul. He was referring to able bodied loafers.
  Now there is talk of robbing Social Security again! From people that have worked hard and give it to like those above. It is estimated that those getting SS today should be receiving 40% more. If the crooks from both parties left it alone.
  
  What is wrong with Cruz? Don't like the tea party?
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You seem to be a pretty good spokeman for that side of ideological ledger that I have consistent problems with and would like to get a better understanding of why the Right take the positions it does.
  
  The greatest threat to Social Security come from the Right and their privatization schemes, giving Wall Street the enormous windfall just so they can gamble with it and lose. Both parties play a role in why the program is not what it should be, however one party is trying to shore it up while the other wants to water it down further per the so called 'free market' solution.
  
  No one likes loafers, but there is plenty of theft of public money at the top of the food chain. Being progressive is why I don't care for the Tea Party and I would just as soon a NEEDY poor citizen get relief than see fat cats take more of my money merely because they can.
  
  Your adherence to the Tea Party is associated with conservatism, leaning toward the reactionary.
  
  In regards to Obama's birth certificate, if they are hiding something, it has yet to be proved. Proof is the only basis for any position that I have made and would be forced to substantiate.
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  if a republican gets in, it will be the end of social security as we know it.
  reply report
  79
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Republican Party Platform: on Social Security
  
  Give workers control over their retirement investments
  
  While no changes should adversely affect any current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform should address our society's remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as supplements to the system. Younger Americans have lost all faith in the Social Security system, which is understandable when they read the non- partisan actuary's reports about its future funding status. Born in an old industrial era beyond the memory of most Americans, it is long overdue for major change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones a day of reckoning. To restore public trust in the system, Republicans are committed to setting it on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on, their investments. The sooner we act, the sooner those close to retirement can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers can take responsibility for planning their own retirement decades from now."
  http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2012 … curity.htm
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Here is the real truth about social security.
  
  Don't believe the right wing propaganda.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, I usually don't!
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is time for a no party gov. Vote in the best person for a particular job. Impeach any that go back on what they promised. Limit the terms of appointed judges. And impeach them as well when they go against what they said they are about. Back to the Constitution as it was intended.
  Guns were allowed by the Constitutional 2nd amendment.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
So , after all this discussion , I have realized that I must have a family intervention with my gun collection ! It's time , things have gone on long enough and I won't stand for anymore , There is either something going on behind my back or I'm just not seeing things clearly ! So here goes ;

" I want you to be honest with me ,have you been leaving the gun safe at night and hurting people ?"

" NO , WE HAVEN'T GONE ANYWHERE "

' No , Well if you haven't gone anywhere , as you say , and people are still getting killed , what's going on, can you explain this to me and my friends ?"

"NO"

"Well someone is lying to me , either you or the media pundits who say all of us gun owners are lying or that our guns themselves are lying "

" WELL WE HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE IN YOUR GUN SAFE LOCKED UP ALL DAY LONG , LIKE A BUNCH OF CRIMINALS , COLLECTING DUST , THAT'S ALL WE KNOW "

" And you're sure you haven't hurt ANYONE like they say "?

" AH DUHHH , IF YOU HADEN'T NOTICED , WE ARE A BUNCH OF RUSTING IRON INANIMATE OBJECTS , YES WE HAVE A BAD NAME BUT WE AIN'T DONE NUTTIN''

" Okay , there you have it , my guns are innocent , they haven't done a thing , leave them alone "

I mean thirty five guns and not one of them has ever so much as hurt a fly !
Kind of makes you wonder about all these anti- gun advocates.

reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

Okay , so I haven't had an intervention with my guns , but I'm really sure they haven't hurt any Hubbers at least .
reply report
79
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
Smart guns are not new but I just learned about them. They would only allow the owner's of the guns to be able to use them. As I understand it, that is why they have not been mass produced for fear of more gun control. I wouldn't be opposed to smart guns for law abiding citizens. Criminals would not be stealing them in home invasions.

If they are like smart phone, adds would pop up and some owners would look at the adds and shoot themselves. Might not be such a good idea.
reply report
1. 77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I like the idea of smart guns, but do have some reservations. How do they detect the owner (a chip carried on the person? An implant? How?). What does it add to the cost? How is it reprogrammed when sold - easy enough that anyone can do it (useless) or so expensive that the gun is effectively trash and cannot be re-sold (no one will buy)? How effective are they (do they ever refuse to fire when they shouldn't?)
  reply report
  79
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  All good questions, wilderness. It is a good idea, but...
  I won't be getting injected with a smart chip. Not a good idea.
  People can be tracked with smart phones. Hmm!
  Will "they" be able to deactivate a smart gun?
  I hear you. Ty
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Smart guns , smart bullets , smart cars , I was listening to a talk show on radio about smart car problems , how do you make a smart car [ hands off ] instantly decide to hit either a small child on a bike OR a dog , both in the road , if that choice happens ,.

We don't need smart guns, we need smart voters,1- we need to decide to either pay for incarceration or live on the streets with killers ,2- we need to support our police in criminal deterrence or hobble them with more restrictive enforcement , 3-we need to expect politicians to actually legislate crime instead of living a perpetual life of campaigning .

As tax payers we keep throwing our hard earned dollars at the same incompetent leadership in America , YOU already paying through the nose for the system that piles ineffectiveness on top of ineffectiveness , on top of more of the same , ALL THE WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT!

But hey ,what the hell , lets write another piece of legislation , that worked last time right ?

MAKE THE SYSTEM YOU HAVE NOW -WORK !
reply report
1. 77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think it's fair to compare a smart gun, that only has to decide if the owner is in close proximity, to the decision requirements of a smart car.
  
  But I also see smart guns as only a small aid in reducing the number of stolen guns. While stolen guns are most definitely out there, I suspect that the very large majority are bought quite legally or smuggled. Not stolen. And as most people will keep a wristband or other identifier stored alongside their smart gun it isn't going to help if the gun is stolen from the home, either.
  
  For men, perhaps a chip carried in a wallet or a belt buckle, but that won't work for most women. Or a watchband, but watches are fading from the scene as phones take their place. I think it still needs considerable work before the idea would be valid at all, and it has to be cheap to boot. Not easy.
  reply report
2. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I have some questions for you:
  
  Do you ever think about all the people that were murdered in cold blood, in schools, colleges, theaters, churches and on a military base by mentally ill people using weapons of mass destruction?
  
  How do you feel about that?
  
  How do you think the people who were left behind feel? Do you ever think about how a bright young senator is now mentally handicapped and a bright little girl with a future is dead because of senseless shooting and killing?
  
  How do you feel about that?
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
One issue that disappoints me , Is that researchers and statisticians [ if that's the word ] , much like scientists in the past always attacked a project by disproving a theory , tear down the numbers , prove for or against an issue . Like global warming , where one day science would actually disprove theories ! We now see a theory and numbers to support the cause , promotion by agenda ! And that IS the style of modern day Anti- gun advocates .

Don't like the statistics , create a chart where you can promote your own numbers !

There is still only one truth , truth never changes !
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
A message to Anti- gun advocates ,
You can get a misplaced president to make an executive action .
You might get the criminal world to have an revelation to turn their life around .
You might get the police to disarm themselves in America .
You can get a mentally disturbed individual to agree to anything .
You might get the military to begin fighting wars with rocks .
But you will never get the law abiding American sportsman to surrender his guns to you .
Promise !
reply report
71
wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago
Whatever. I say stop you say go. The Beatles explained this tactic years ago. Considering that you don't understand the language of the Second Amendment, don't know the true definition of Anarchy, and seem to be incapable of spelling my name right, your reference to "basic English" is quite funny.
reply report
60
Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago
Very Well Said peoplepower73 ~ When republicans ACTUALLY take a good look at their own party, or the remnants of it, and TRULY Understand that a VOTE for a Crooked Conservative is in REALITY a Vote Against their Self-Interest, we see more and more of them Wlilfully Converting over to the GOOD Progressive Democratic side where "We the People" not "We the Filthy Rich" are represented in Kind ~
reply report
1. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Alternative Prime: Thanks, Self-righteous people are the first ones to quote scripture about how Jesus helped the needy and the poor and cured the lepers. But they are also the first ones to say, "I got mine, you go get yours."
  
  I don't care if you are an extremists on either side, you can't help but be hypocritical. Some where along the line, it will come out. Look at all the evangelical preachers that have committed adultery. They stand in front of their congregation and say "Forgive me Lord for I have sinned", while ripping off their congregation for millions of dollars in donations. How is that for personal accountability?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Paul said about able bodied people "If you don't want to work then don't eat our food." Not in those exact words but darn close.
  He had no problem giving to those that were not able to help around the area where Paul
  and others were doing things and feeding the poor. Widows and orphans mentioned.
  I don't like to "work" with others that watch me and and goof off or just barely do work just to say they did something. Happens quite a bit. Or those that cheat the system and expect to get what the real workers get. This is why the Plymouth settlement went back to that "evil" capitalism method. There was many that did minimal or nothing and there was not enough food grown. Russia had that problem with those flooding into the cities away from the farms. Then they crowded into available housing and get on droll.
  One reason for long lines at the food distribution places.and shortages.
  reply report
  60
  James Gaskinsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Life without the Second Amendment? I thought about this one for a while before deciding to respond, and now that I have I must ask...should we cross our fingers and hope for the best while we acclimate ourselves to a life without guns. Personally, I don't own a gun. I think they are dangerous. But that doesn't mean I don't support gun rights. Nobody has the right to tell someone they can't own a gun, as long as that person is mentally stable enough to own one. Where you're wanting us to go is into the unknown. Instead, I wish we could restore traditional values rather than living in a charade of cultural diversity that instructs us how to feel, what we can and can’t say and even what God we should be praying to. For today, we must live with tolerance and acceptance of the wickedly insane and to do otherwise, simply implies prejudicial judgment.
  
  If we spoke not in wishes, but in objective facts, the reasoned questions we asked would demand honest answers. How gratifying it would be to understand the current threats and receive them as fortification of our nation. We could then feel repulsion for our enemy, rather than striking a forced smile at them, forced out by fear of a government and extreme left wingers who would tell on you for your insensitivity. Remember, Big Brother watches our every move! We have government that writes laws to secure cultural diversity while pissing on human liberty and the freedoms by which it stands.
  
  To understand the connection between the human spirit and freedom we must cultivate our virtues so that we may preserve our liberty. Today, most Americans believe freedom means having the ability to do anything they want. However, in truth, it’s that kind of belief that leads to prison, chaos, violence, and at last check, tyranny.
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
<"George Washington lamented that political party wrangling "agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another."> Doug Culter.
Here's the thing:
We have had this absolute chasm since the founding of America.
The Federalists on the one side, (today's Republicans,) and the Republicans on the other, (today's Democrats.)
In those days hatred between the Federalists (Hamilton) and the Republicans (Jefferson) was fierce. More than now?
I doubt it.
Less than now?
Absolutely NOT.

What if we just realized that both stances are vital and both are needed to check the other?

A pitch and a catch / A catch and a pitch

so close, yet so far.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Peoplepower , You took an oath to protect the constitution with your life if need be didn't you , --That includes the second amendment --, What would your military cohorts do if you took this attitude while in service ?

If we just think about why the second was actually written , we realize that at the time England was controlling it's populace by the tip of the sword . As DID and DO a lot of European countries . America was the great experiment that worked against the bets of many . That's no different today .

I dare say this , without the second amendment , there would be NO American democracy . Not then and not now ! The entire problem with gun crimes today are the inner city gangs for one , left uncontrolled , unchecked , they will destroy the cities as IS now right happening ! Chicago, Baltimore , Detroit , Oakland Ca., L.A. , NYC..

No one wants to break the P.C. rules , but another issue in our inner cities is the culture of fatherless homes , hell- hole housing projects , overcrowding schools , and a youth culture of all ethnicities that are escaping their economically depressed sub-cultures through crime in the streets .

BUT HERE IS THE LEFTIST'S SOLUTION , Take guns out of law abiding citizens hands and in spite of the fact that we will watch the crime rates escalate beyond that which you have never seen before ! JUST LIKE IT HAS in Chicago , NYC, Detroit --------just in the last year alone !

Where I live , a phone call in the middle of the night to 911 would perhaps get a state cop to your door in a half hour more or less , A lot can happen at the hands of a criminal in a half hour ! Thanks but no thanks , I'll defend my own home . It's my right and it aint' changing !
reply report
1. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: In reference to your 2nd paragraph. it is different today than it was in 1791. That's 224 years ago. I give the framers of the constitution credit for being visionaries, but they could not see 224 years into the future. That's one of the reasons we have the Supreme Court is for interpretation of the constitution and they don't always get it right.
  
  It's almost as if the gun culture uses the 2nd amendment as a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have the guns, now bring on the tyranny, because we are ready for you. The framers could not envision the modern weapons of today in their wildest dreams, no more than you and I can see 224 years into the future. Our military has evolved from the Minutemen to the might of our armed services today. We have gone through several wars and each time we increase the technology of our military. The country has gone from 13 states to 50 states. The framers could have never envisioned that. We are a modern republic. Not a fledgling country that has to arm ourselves for a British invasion.
  
  We are now entering the era of public drones that can interfere with airliners and possibly bring them down. They can also be armed. The congress is scratching their heads as to how to frame laws for these crafts and also for lasers that are pointed at pilots as they take off and land. The framers had no ideas about these and we don't know how to control them. Does the 2nd amendment that was ratified in 1791 take care of those as well? Do we have the right to bear those arms as well?
  
  These are modern times we are living in, not colonial times. The British have gone from being ruled by monarchs to where they are just figure heads today. The axis powers are gone.The Soviet Union is gone. Do you really think a country is going to invade our shores. North Korea or possibly Iran could launch missiles, but your AR15 is not going to shoot them down. And even if they did, don't you think the might of our military would be able to handle it? Terrorists are not going to go door to door to attack a 50 state country. They use force multipliers to scare us or like they did in 911. I cannot fathom the notion of tyranny by our government, nor a civilian militia protecting us from a foreign invasion. We are not living in colonial times. This is the 21st century, not the 16th century.
  
  You live in rural area. I can understand the need to protect yourself and maybe law enforcement may not arrive in time. I believe you are a law abiding citizen, but most of don't live like you do. We live in urban areas where we can trust our law enforcement.
  
  As a matter of fact because of mass shootings, some schools now have School Resource Officers to protect the schools. The problem is they are used for the wrong reasons as in the South Carolina incident. So now we are moving towards a police state. You don't stop the criminals in inner cities by the gun culture having more arms. All that does is provide the criminals with more arms as well. You do it by fixing laws that don't work and new laws to cover the loop holes. And for the nth time, I don't want to take away your guns. There should be laws to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. I have already gone over all those loop holes with you.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower ,
  
  The brilliance of the US. constitution IS that it has a timeless honesty ,morality integrity, meaning and manageability in EVEN our modern culture . What HAS changed is human nature , behavior and yes , morality . That doesn't outdate our constitution any more than it outdates time itself. It Is the human element that has changed, as it always does ! The quantity of humility ,of moral and ethical human behavior rides a roller coaster , However Truth , justice and basic human behavior in from a government to it's people and visa-versa cannot. .
  
  Peoplepower , You HAVE completely ignored the factor of personal human responsibility, , of one's legal and social responsibility and accountability ! AND you have done THAT over and over again
  
  You Have ALSO ignored the incompetence of todays liberal manifestation of our justice system , which is a joke because there is no actual justice , --BECAUSE there is no punishment . When you and your representation in this very system account for THAT alone , I will THEN consider a change in gun related law !
  
  Want proof of that , Write a letter to any part of the legal system expecting a response for an injustice ! I have several.
  
  You keep mentioning my AR-15 , I don't own one , never have never will . I find the assault like LOOK of a gun , ugly . Because your whole "assault weapon " dialog ,quite naively, is ALL ABOUT THE LOOKS of a gun . That though , is but the Naiveté of knowledge in guns , TO ALL ANTI GUN PEOPLE .
  
  The police state argument , that liberals so love to expound upon , Is simply your lack of comprehension . How can we possibly be in a police state IF at the same time ,we are promoting ethically ,socially , behaviorally , ------anarchy ? No, my friend , it is that anarchy that IS the biggest problem in a un-law abiding culture promoted by liberal social behavior . Your youth is out of control , especially inner city youth , in schools , in public and in private.
  
  The greatest threat of tyranny in America by the way , comes from within America ! We do not fear this outside invasion that you so handily keep using as a purely foolish argument tactic, The" gun culture " ,feels little fear from outside of the US. Our reasoning for protecting ourselves hold much less a hold on us than you imagine ,- except in home defense . There is no paranoia in the "gun culture " we can and will take care of our own . By way of tyranny , what we fear and rightfully so , Is the socialization of America from the left ,yes from you !
  
  Leftist's in America are constantly promoting a Nanny Government manifesto , you want the government to cure all your ills , that come mostly from your own personal behavior and lack of social and legal accountability . If there is an ill in your life , you want Uncle Sam to cure it , another law , another regulation , another re-distribution of accounting for yourselves .
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Ahorseback, you seem to be talking about a judicial system from the 1970s. Please explain why a country with 5% of the world's population incarerate 20% of the world's prisoners? Why do 1 out 3 working age adults have a criminal record? Why do 1 out of 5 Americans have a criminal record? Why is it that although crime is down and leveled out, incarceration keeps increasing? Why is 3% of the US adult population in jail or on probations (that is larger than the State of Washington). Why did the prison population triple since 1987?
  
  I could go on, but that is enough to convince people that the liberal justice system we have is pretty tough on crime.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Because we're still a "colonial" nation, disliking big government and all it's laws?
  Because we're a nation of two earner couples, letting children raise themselves?
  Because we've foregone discipline of children in favor of talking to them?
  Because we've decided that mind altering drugs are a way of life?
  Because we have so many laws that everyone is bound to violate one now and then?
  Because we've become a nation of entitlements, allowing people to sit at home instead of working (and opening up all that free time)?
  
  Better, seems to me, to answer those questions than simply ask them. Maybe we'd learn something from the thoughts and ideas.
  
  I'd like to see those stats, though, that 33% of adults have a criminal record. I just do not believe that.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I remember in the 50's and 60's, While growing up. It generally took only one wage earner to pay all bills.
  The liberal unions then demanded 3 1/2 times what the minimum wage was. This caused prices to rise and the low wage people are the last to get raised. Then the whole stink'n thing starts all over again when minimum wage goes up. Those at the top getting big raises. While those at the bottom have to take on additional jobs to keep up.
  
  We had a cultural shift in the 60's. Give me, give me, give me, anything goes mentality.
  The Constitution was base on moral standards. Appointing moral judges is now a joke! Have seen trash passed or stopped by one vote. It will take only one more lesbian/gay liberal judge to sway the justice system to a total morally corrupt mess! They need to be vetted better by the house and senate.
  And a limit put on how long they serve.
  
  We do need guns, and more, to back up what the liers promised us. We, the silent moral majority voted in.
  
  Social Security does not have COL increases that keep up with actual inflation. The regime has determined that energy and food does not count. Wish they had to live on what I get and tell me it doesn't matter. Another thing that makes living harder is all the new insurances demanded at all gov. levels: health, auto, medicare, fees etc.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You left out one item that severely impacts the two earner necessity, and that's consumer greed. One car isn't enough any more, or one small TV. Free programming for that TV just doesn't cut it. House size, per person, has nearly doubled since the 60's. RV's, boats, 4-wheelers and other giant expensive toys are required. A cell phone per person, including children. Computers in every household, along with internet. Video games.
  
  The list is long of "necessities" that we now simply must have but that our parents did without and did quite nicely, thank you. And that requires two earners, not one, for all the extras.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  To everybody: This is something that I find very relevant to our discussions. You cannot prosecute a person who has been found preparing for mass murders, but never committed them. It is long, but I found it very revealing. It was breaking news on CNN today.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/us/minnes … index.html
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Can their weapons be taken? This is a good example of the ones that should not be allowed to
  to own. Others should be left alone. I don't want this to be one of those "take guns from everyone" that some are pushing for.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Doug Cutler:
  
  How do you make that determination?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That is why I ask. I guess I will have to have a weapon to protect myself since the gov. may not do anything about it. I am just a law abiding citizen.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  <"Because we've foregone discipline of children in favor of talking to them?">
  
  Talking to children is part of discipline, if you ask me. Setting boundaries, giving reasons/explanations, having discussions, teaching, requires our wonderful ability to T A L K !!
  
  What is discipline to you, wilderness? standing in a corner?
  punishments of some sort? a belt?
  
  Consider that the gang/criminal way of life is due to being born into poverty, unstable parents and a lack of education. It is a cultural thing and no amount of Discipline in the form of Punishments will cut through that conditioning. (In fact, punishments are rarely affective.)
  
  Mass shootings have occurred since guns were invented and minds could go berserk.
  Nowadays they go berserk for many reasons. I believe drugs, bad diets, bad home environments,(alcoholic or emotionally absent parents, etc.), and violent video games contribute toward this malady.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: Please stop telling me how I think. You know how I think and it is not what you keep saying over and over again. It's what you think I think and it is not my reality. I don't tell you what you think. I tell your what I observe. What you are doing is using the same political tactic that the right wing uses with Benghazi. You keep saying the same think over and over again. You have never answered a single one of my questions to you.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: I have not ignored human responsibility. I told you and gave you examples about how you cannot rely on personal accountability because greed, corruption, and selfishness is part of human nature, but you have ignored it.
  
  I think you are very much exaggerating what you call liberal incompetence. There is as much if not more conservative incompetence. Just look how the house has blocked every bill that is proposed. They have not passed any laws since Obama has been in office, but they sure have blocked a lot of them. They have tried to repeal Obama Care and investigated Benghazi ad nauseam. Is that what your congress is for. They are even incompetent in making Obama a one term president. That was their supreme mission and it failed.
  
  As far as your letter goes, what does that mean you wrote letters to the legal system.? Try a congressmen. You probably won't get through, because they are too busy taking donations from the NRA!
  
  It's not about the anti-gun people being naive. Now we know you don't own an AR15...good for you. But a lot of the gun culture does.
  
  How are we promoting anarchy? Anarchy is lawlessness. The laws that are getting removed are the ones that prevent the super rich and corporations from taking advantage of you and me.
  
  So you feel socialization from the left is creating tyranny. So what are you going to do if it actually happens, kill all the liberals? Because you are armed to do that. Remember the 2nd amendment? That's what it is for.
  
  I don't want the government to cure all of my ills and I don't want a nanny state. Please stop telling me how I think and generalizing how the liberals think.
  
  You noticed in my posts, I try to answer everyone of your paragraphs, You on the other hand go off on your rants about how the liberals are to blame for everything. Where is this government nanny manifesto? The truth is liberals are as concerned of conservatives ruining this country as conservatives are concerned of liberals doing the same thing.
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
I guess I am talking about common sense compromises.
Guns are good to a certain extent.
Capitalism and Freedom of Marketing is good to a certain extent.
Freedom of Speech is good to a certain extent.
Freedom of Religion is good to a certain extent.

When any of these become abusive, it is past the dotted red line of the Certain Extent.

GOOD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BAD

We must stay within the boundaries of what is good.

Good for what?

Life
Liberty
Pursuit of Happiness.

So simple isn't it?
reply report
60
Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago
I'm just Extremely Happy to live in a BIG City where "Tyranny" ONLY Exists in "Republican PRETEND Land" ~ REMOTE Pockets of Ultra-Rural America like in Alaska where apparently people have NOTHING better to do than sit around on a porch Waiting Patiently for President Obama, or President Whomever to ROLL up on their Lawn in a Bright Shiny Tank ~

Believe me, you'll NEVER hear this kind of NONSENSE in BIG Cities like Los Angeles or New York, or Miami, or San Francisco, or St Louis, we sit around and discuss REAL Issues pertaining to REAL America, not Fictitious Forays into Pseudo-Conflict Land ~

P.S. the 2cnd Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Tyranny" otherwise it would have been inserted into the text, the 2cnd Amendment Actually BANS Arms for ALL Americans who are NOT affilitated with the Military ~ It's written in Concise English and Articulates a single idea ~
reply report
1. 84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Like you were there and you talked to George himself?
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What does Talking to George have to do with READING & Understanding a simple sentence that the FOUNDERS Wrote in between CHASING French Maids around the Plantation ??
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  French maids?
  
  UH…..
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I thought it was their slaves. Maybe both?
  They should have concentrated more on making the 2nd clearer to some that have a problem realizing that a sentence can more then a single topic.
  
  1st topic: Permission for the state to form militias. 2nd topic: The state that forms said militias shall not infringe the right of the citizen to have arms. Meaning weapons, for those that think they were talking about a persons appendages.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know Doug:
  
  seems pretty clear:
  
  " ... To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens, (way higher today,) with arms, (weapons and guns) in their hands, officered by men:
  
  1.) Chosen from among themselves.
  
  2.) Fighting for their common liberties.
  
  3.) United.
  
  4.) Conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence, (state governments on their side.) "
  
  the question is this:
  
  Can we ever unite with a common impulse anywhere, ever????? Can we all recognize oppression at the same time? (I guess one side could fake it for the sake of the other.)
  
  I guess we are speaking of majority and representation of majority.
  
  Oh, it gets complicated.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  They did not have French maids, (unless J. Adams and B. Franklin broght some back after their visits to France, but I doubt it.)
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know why the libs pick on poor old George?. Look at some of their more recent hero presidents. Kennedy: Maryland Monroe some 16 year old girl in the white house. The current pres: had gay old times in this college days and maybe more recent. Clinton: Ms Monica and others.
  The founders must have had a lot more on their minds than to think about ways to make the 2nd clearer!
  reply report
2. 79
  TheHealthGuy LMposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Alternative Prime = For someone who thinks so highly of themselves (a legend in their, your own mind) you can't read very well nor understand what you read. I would guess you have smoked to many joints, popped to many pills and have for certain drank way to many gallons of gov't kool-aid. You didn't really write this did you?
  I quote: "P.S. the 2cnd Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Tyranny" otherwise it would have been inserted into the text, the 2cnd Amendment Actually BANS Arms for ALL Americans who are NOT affilitated with the Military ~ It's written in Concise English and Articulates a single idea ~"
  
  Please excuse me while I ROTFLMFAO at your stupidity!
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
Frankly, I have watched some videos of police power in England.
I think the fact cops do not carry guns there is kind of a problem.
There you see strange conflicts between citizens and cops.
Each group trying to overpower and one up the other.
reply report
1. 60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It's a GOOD thing the 2cnd Amendment affords Police Officers here in America the RIGHT to Keep & Bear Arms ~ --><--
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  REALLY????
  YA Think?
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
<"Actually BANS Arms for ALL Americans who are NOT affilitated with the Military."> Alternative Prime

"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*( How? IS the question! See above!) 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,* (state 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. (Enterprises of Ambition)

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.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

From Federalist Paper 46 By Madison.
reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
Our citizens should be able to defend their rights and actively resist a "long train of INSIDIOUS measures
which precede and produce OPPRESSION."

Perhaps well-organized and well-trained state militias, manned by citizens were intended, encouraged and anticipated.

?
reply report
1. 71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn ~
  
  ONLY in Hillbilly Joe's "Republican PRETEND Land" is what you say correct ~
  
  Here, In the REAL Tangible COMMON Sense World, George "I'll Chase French Maids Around Til' I Drop Now That I'm Free" Washington et al his Peers NEVER EVER Gave the Right to Bear Arms to a Bunch of DRUNKARD Pilgrims who would Immediately use those Weapons Against HIM and his Buddies ~ Just READ the Amendment WITHOUT Exluding any WORDS ~
  
  Amendment Number 2 Applies to Organized & Regulated Military Forces which were assembled in an effort to DEFEND Against another Foreign Invasion such as England looking for Revenge ~ That's it, Plain & Simple ~ How anyone could possibly interpret it any DIFFERENTLY is a DEEP Perplexing M*Y*S*T*E*R*Y ~
  
  And NO, there were NO Buffalo Bullets either ~
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Everybody: This is an excellent analysis of both sides of the mass shooting situation in this country, It looks at it from the viewpoint of why it happens, what can be done and what can't be done and why. It's eight minutes long but very informative.
  
  https://youtu.be/f5afolbUvF8
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If George was so afraid of the citizens don't you think he would round up their guns? No. didn't happen!
  Even gave them permission to form militias and the others to own. And that right "Shall not be infringed"
  
  No words need to be changed. Just capitalization and punctuation. Don't even try to say the founders didn't do that several times. Check the sites!
  From:
  "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.”
  to:
  "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.”
  See! No word changes!
  
  Your body Biscuits wont be happy with your saying the army didn't give free bullets to ordinary people to shoot buffalo. He insists on that was done for the "sole" purpose of starving the Indians. You both like to cherry pick. Read the whole articles.
  reply report
81
Eco_Aliposted 9 years ago
Apples and oranges...you cant compare a president's private personal indescretions with another's treasonous national security guffaws...it just isnt equitable, rational, or balanced.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
THE MOST DANGEROUS ASSAULT WEAPON IN THE WORLD !

The most uncontrolled danger to humanity , the most dangerous thing to womanhood , to children it is the worst disease in the universe , In solitude or in the crowds , in the city or the country . There is no other assault weapon in the universe more powerful , more dangerous or more out of control , There is no object in the world more fearful to mankind. Even every inanimate object in the universe shrinks in fear of this assault weapon.
reply report
1. 86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And you want to guarantee this "assault weapon" has the means to do their nefarious acts. Keep in mind, many of these "assault weapons" are cowards and must hide behind the distance provided by firearms to act badly.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you misunderstand my point . IT IS THE HUMAN MIND OF THE CRIMINAL ,or THE CRAZY ! That is the real culprit to mass killings , school killings , public killings ! Not an inanimate object . It is the human element ,much like Hitler , Mussolini, Mao , or Bin Laden ......not the knife , the club , the gun , or the rock , that is responsible for human to human crimes of passion .
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
Mr. A. Prime:

Do you also believe that the "...long train of INSIDIOUS measures
which precede and produce OPPRESSION" is just part of a Pretend World?

(What do you think we are living in? )

Do you NOT believe we should be able to prevent this long train of insidious measures (leading to oppression) from occurring in the first place?
Or do you believe, with your rose colored glasses on, that this long train could NEVER occur?

Why do you believe such a train could never occur?

How would one or many stop such a train? And do not forget we are speaking of an oppression which could take over (from within or without) as it has so many times in HISTORY! What? Do you think we are suddenly evolved and tyrants are to be nevermore? Like the Tyrannosaurus Rex they have been destroyed by asteroids? or something like that …
in your REAL world?
reply report
1. 78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  you can't overthrow a government that has drones and tanks with any amount of guns, which makes this argument for guns specious.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you can. The state militias will just have to up their reserves now, won't they?
  Of course, this will mean less money for painting bicycle lanes ALL OVER THE CITY STREETS and all this other stuff:
  
  BULLET TRAINS TO NOWHERE
  CEMENT SKATE PARKS constructed in perfectly beautiful natural parks.
  URBAN HOUSING projects to entice people to move to the inner cities … for presently unknown reasons …
  METRO LINKS where they are not needed in the least.
  The hiring of an OVERABUNDANCE OF COUNTY WORKERS.
  
  Its a growing list of new uses for tax dollars.
  Instead, why not protect ourselves with our tax dollars?
  Cuz it makes too much sense.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Moving people into concentrated areas is a way to control them. Put more of Hitlers fluoride in the water to keep them docile. Or other worse stuff. Feed them GMO and other infected foods.
  Why do you think they are cracking down on people that want to collect rain water and grow their own food? Have you never heard that the gov. wants to kill off 90% of us?
  The A Primes will be first in line in their utopia cities.
  
  We need to be well armed. Unless God is going to show he is going to protect us. Even then, God usually requires us to make an effort.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  E F F O R T there is a word to contemplate.
  
  For instance: I really think a new skate park in the middle of our beautiful local park is a bad idea. The city can surely find another location. There are plenty of other spots they can use for this dangerous, unsupervised "sport." Sadly, the center of this most beautiful, grassy, spacious meandering park which features gravel pathways, two baseball diamonds, stone barbecue structures from the thirties and picnic areas amongst oak, maple and fir trees is already being torn up. The grass is already dead and the bulldozers are digging. I feel pretty helpless. Were we given a choice/voice? Did any one ask us????
  
  Not only that! There is another skate park nearby which they have closed because there were too many serious accidents involving air-lifts. Why not restructure/build that one? Why create another tragic-event magnet? I will copy this and send it to the local newspaper. (Luckily, we have one.) I suppose one never knows what one can do until one starts to WRITE. The key is to work with local fellow citizens and that might be the hard part.
  
  We will have to get back to more of a community focus.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe a vote was taken for a park there, that you may have missed???
  The topic of this hub is the 2nd. I help were I can though.
  In the event of a tyrannical gov. we need the same arms that the gov. has.
  Assault weapons, drones, hand held rockets, signal jamming devices, etc.
  The 2nd gives us that right! Get over it!
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You have just stated the reason that we need the same arms the gov. has. In and out of the militias.
  There are thousands of civilian drones. Fit some with shaped charges and by-by tank. Also, some hand held armor piercing devices wouldn't be a bad idea. You seem to forget that not every general will go along with such gov. actions and will join in the revolution. Also, jam the communications of tanks and they are not as effective. Good old yank improvisation!
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You sound like you have no need for a United States, just 50 different States doing their own thing. I suspect, on inspection, that will devolve, once the US has been dismantled, into fighting for the dissolution of the State, especially large ones, into their constituent counties; then counties into cities. Even then your reasoning can logically be extended to each citizen having the necessary armament to defend themselves from the oppressive city polis. Your perfect world, it would seem is one where every man is an island and is heavily armed.
  
  There is a reason why people give up some of their liberty, and that is to enjoy the protection of the State, writ large. The Constitution, in case you forgot, was designed for the People to control the government, should they choose to so, by the vote, not by the gun But each and every contributor to the Constitution knew, and many stated in so many words, that if the People decide not to participate in government, then there will only be tyranny.
  
  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, the only purpose, was to ensure the government can never disarm the People in the same fashion as the British were attempting to do in the colonies. The idea, of course, is an armed citizenry makes it very difficult for the State, be it a state or federal gov't, to oppress (in a factual way, not in a conspiracy theory way); a state of affairs this country has never known; and because of the power of the vote, probably never will. Nevertheless, the 2nd Amendment ensures the citizenry always has that capability by formalizing our right to bear arms. As it happens, one consequence of the right to bear arms is self-defense, which neither included in nor implied in the words of the Amendment. Instead, as I just said, the right to defend oneself, (right to life) with a firearm is simply an outgrowth of the citizen's right to bear arms.
  
  But, with "rights" come responsibilities ... for the individual citizen and the gov't. The citizen is responsible for the safekeeping of a deadly weapon and appropriate use of it that "harms no others". On the other hand, the gov't is responsible for making sure deadly weapons do not fall into the hands of irresponsible people whether they are a criminal "or not". It is this last statement which the NRA leadership and their ardent supporters don't agree with and will oppose any effort to keep deadly weapons out of the wrong hands.
  
  Consequently, the NRA, et al, has blood on its hands because there are many dead people who wouldn't be had the NRA worked toward keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I don't care what the NRA does or doesn't do. They have no power over me. I care about what those crooks in Washing do because they are the ones that robbed Social Security and forced me to take substandard jobs because I wasn't female enough,. minority enough, disabled enough. Not even part Indian enough. Therefore locked out of good jobs because of that lame affartative action crap since the 60's. Then get drafted and miss out on some apprenticeships to boot. By the time I got back from serving
  the scene changed and no more apprenticeships. Could have run off to Canada like those libs back then.
  Decided it better to stick it out in the Army.
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
Maybe the States SHOULD step up to the plate and get more involved in guns and gun control. Maybe official state militias SHOULD be established. Willing, able and fit Men and Women, (US citizens only,) should have the opportunity to train and exercise in case of national calamity due to a train of events involving a corrosion of morals, erosion of honesty and inflating disregard for citizens and their rights on the side of the Fed or other encroaching influences. Fitness, availability and willingness to help out in the event of a national or local crisis could be considerations in qualifying for gun ownership.

This action, if taken by state leadership, (as in, ALL states,) would be a check on New World Order types, Globalists and the Illuminati including the joint power of Monopolies / Wall Street / The President / Etc.

Why, Thank YOU, peoplepower 73! You have given us a discussion which has led We The People toward true and REAL power!

~ so of you!
reply report
1. 86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  State militias are called the National Guard today and each state has one for each service. For example, I belonged to the California National Guard and later, when I moved, the Maryland National Guard.
  
  And those few states who HAVE stepped up to the plate on gun control are reaping the reward for having done so in lower rates of death from guns.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "National Guard Soldiers serve both community and country. Our versatility enables us to respond to domestic emergencies, overseas combat missions, counterdrug efforts, reconstruction missions and more. The Guard always responds with speed, strength and efficiency, helping to defend American freedom and ideals."
  http://www.nationalguard.com
  
  I am thinking of something more geared toward State Protection.
  Something closer to home.
  Something a bit more independent of the Fed.
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That is what the NG is, a state Army that can be federalized in a national emergency; as envisioned by the Constitution. By the way, California also has its own militia, separate from the NG; so if CA has such a militia, other states probably have the same organization. I had a friend in the CA version; he got himself appointed Colonel, but they didn't do much - training or otherwise.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  well, that is cool! what is it called?
  
  It probably does not get much financial support!
  
  Of course, this is all pretty idealistic.
  
  We have trusted the govt. for such a long time.
  
  Most people would rather have a benevolent philosopher king and imagine we do ...
  no matter who is in position.
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is the California State Militia, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californi … Department
  
  Surprisingly, it says NV and AZ don't have such an organization.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks!
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
Plans for the skate park started in '13. I never heard a word about the supposed community meetings held in the library. Bottom line: If the city wants something they will get it. I have learned that the hard way many a time. And money speaks the loudest / heard the clearest.

I posted this issue as an example of the power we (don't) have. People trust the government, but in the end why do we trust the gov't?
Elected officials will take as much power as is good for the elected officials. Some of our representratives are not the type to take advantage of their position …
But, as we know, some are …
or become that way in time.

Don''t you think in the end that is the biggest issue ?
Who can we trust?
This world is a horrible place.

Whatever works.

http://thehigherlearning.com/2014/06/26 … r-funding/
reply report
54
Ahmed Ali Younesposted 9 years ago
nice hub , a man
reply report
54
Ahmed Ali Younesposted 9 years ago
This essay is very useful
reply report
54
Ahmed Ali Younesposted 9 years ago
This essay is very useful
, good a man
reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
"I don't believe people should be able to own guns."
- President Barack Obama.

http://therighttobear.com/GuncontrolA/? … rolpollR2B

Did he really say that?
reply report
1. 71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Did he say that? Is he gay, and did he marry a transexual? Was Joan Rivers murdered because she outed Michelle Obama to the press? It's difficult these days to separate fact from fiction. Perhaps I should buy a gun and go shoot a rabbit or a squirrel. Maybe then I would feel better. Doesn't the second amendment give me that right?
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately YOU give Both conservatives and Pres. Obama too much credit , Conservatives don't believe half of what you think they do AND pres. Obama can't seem to conclude anything about gun violence , especially where HE CAME FROM , Chicago ! Or are you from Chicago too ? Is that why you post the way you do ?
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Your question reveals yet another way to protect yourself without guns.I don't live in Chicago. I moved into a quiet country community of predominantly old people. People over 70 years old don't normally get into bar fights. They don't break into each others homes. And if somebody steals their girlfriend, they are usually glad to get rid of her. They might even pay you to do it. Everybody is usually in bed by 10 P.M.; even on the weekends. In this community I have found safety in numbers. I don't need the second amendment to protect me here.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So you live in a heavily populated rest home ?
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Sure, you could call it that if you like. Surrounding yourself with uptight angry people under 50 is nothing but trouble. People over 50 can often be just as uptight and miserable, but they have long since passed the violent stage. Sure, there is the occasional exception. But when we witness the white on white violence of recent mass shootings, we see that it is young white men doing all of the killing. I have yet to hear of a 90 year old white man raping anyone, or getting a gun and killing 20 or more people in less than 60 seconds.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Never heard of anyone killing 20 people in less than a minute, either. At least not by shooting them - bombs and planes, yes, but not by gun.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  The AK-47 has 30 rounds in the magazine. It can fire 7.7 rounds per second. It take 5.2 seconds to empty a magazine. It needs 2.5 seconds to reload. Rounding up, the clip can be emptied and reloaded 8 times in one minute. Technically speaking, if you were an excellent shooter and had the available targets, the numbers show that you could kill approx.240 people in one minute! If you missed half of your targets that number is reduced to 120 per minute. Still yet , missing three quarters of your target audience results in 60 kills, which is still 3 times greater than 20.
  
  It is safe to say that using such a weapon, it would be no great feat to kill 20 people in one minute, at your leisure, without breaking a sweat. Apparently, based on many of your comments, there are a lot of things going on in the world that you have not heard of.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I take it that because it is vaguely possible, and you wish to use it in an argument, that you know it is true.
  
  Is that how all anarchists think - that that is a good procedure to produce reliable conclusions? It would certainly explain why they believe anarchy is a reasonable form of "government"!
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I take it that because it is vaguely possible, and you wish to use it in an argument, that you know it is true. That someone really has shot and murdered 20 people in one minute.
  
  Is that how all anarchists think - that that is a good procedure to produce reliable conclusions? It would certainly explain why they believe anarchy is a reasonable form of "government"!
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  With this comment you have proven to the world your true purpose, which needs no explanation. There is nothing "vague" about the numbers; numbers that are based on facts. You cannot respond to the facts I have submitted, and so you have responded with a baseless opinion.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I responded, all right. But I do note that you failed to do the same. Just pushed the question aside into the corner as always.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If you lined up a bunch of horny guys and lesbians thinking they are going to get one of those hot gun toting girls. Then it might happen. Not likely to happen in the real world.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sure does! If you abuse that right you may have a higher power to answer to.
  Just shoot at some cans. Who said everything allowed is moral?
  Remember those bullets the army gave out free to shoot the buffalo. Legal but not moral.
  reply report
2. 86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Tell me, is there another source for that quote other than the extremely biased Professor Lott? Since he has a reason to lie, I challenge his veracity and therefore refuse to believe the mountain made of an unsubstantiated charge..
  reply report
81
Credence2posted 9 years ago
Ok, you guys that want your guns, I guess that you can keep them.

Does carrying that pistol concealed or otherwise make you feel like you have an ‘extra pair’, fellows? Is it an expression of testosterone to drag your pistol into supermarket, tavern or library with you?

Ladies, does packing that pink pistol in your purse make you feel like Honey West?

Your need to interact with the world through intimidation or fear of being intimidated will so move you?

The threat of imminent assault is less likely for most of us than the risk of being bonked on the head with a meteor. So, I never troubled myself by living life seeking shelter from falling meteors.

SO WHY-Is it just because you can?
----------
I had people on this thread claim that there are families here that train 5 year old children in the use of lethal firearms. I said, “Wow”

I understand that while hunting is not my cup of tea that there are legitimate uses for weapons in such a pursuit.
----------
I understand that there are parts of the country, particularly in urban areas where the danger of assault override the sheer inconvenience of living one's life in a state of ‘red alert’ all of the time. This justifies the need for siege mentality, I guess.

When I lived in a rough patch in Denver years ago, I was constantly burglarized and I was tempted to pick up just a “little gun’, 22 caliber. All the alarm systems were not working and I was afraid of being confronted. But, I realized that I was obsessed with security and always suspicious to the point of spending time looking over my shoulder and never having time to enjoy what was in front of me.

The robbers turned out to be a few rather dumb teen-agers, the thought of having to shoot to kill or injure in defense against a break- in was one that I did not want on my conscience, even though they may well have deserved it.

It was just easier to move to different area, and I was fortunate to have reached the point to have the wherewithal to do that.
-------
You have the 2nd Amendment and most of us reasonable people are aware that it is far too entrenched politically to touch. Mr. Obama knows that this topic is the equivalent of an IED and has never really been a threat, but watching and listening to all the right wing rubbish over the airwaves, one would come to a different conclusion.

Do you gun people think that you and your pop guns can compete with military ordinance of the government? Your weapons are worse than useless, the big capitalist system that you are so willing to give your lives to support are much more effective than any street thug at robbing you. So, entertain yourself, delude yourself as long as want.

So, what it all about, Alfie?
reply report
1. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Credence2...Very well said.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Youre welcome, I guess we have come full circle...
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  lol ~ Someone should ask this GUY, so where in the GOSPEL will I find this Passage?? Answer? NOWHERE, it just dosen't exist EXCEPT in "Republican PRETEND Land" ~
  
  I usually don't ANSWER my own Questions, except when ALONE, Cold, & Wandering Aimlessly within my Thoughts ~ ~ But this was a No-Brainer ~
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You don't know, AP?
  
  It is the Book of Arms, New Testiment (Greek Scriptures) Chapter 6, verse 5
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Where can I find a COPY?? In the Greek Yogart isle at the Super-Market? ~ Is it next to the Blueberry or Tart Aegean Pomegranate ~ ~
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is the NRA edition, you will find copies in the public bathroom stalls next to the toilet paper, please try not to confuse the two......
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  lol ~ ~ Um..... I've been TEXTING from a Stall at a local restaurant and as Dunce Rick Perry would say..... Ooooops ~ ~
  reply report
2. 0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Almost every reason that anti- gun , anti-second amendment people use as argument is lame , including this rather bitter little tirade , As having been raised in a heritage of hunting , sport target shooting and simply enjoyable hobbies of gun ownership , maintaining family arms , passing them down along with the privilege , the responsibility and the quality time of engaging young men and women in this sport , is simply put - noting that some of you will ever understand !
  
  The more than obvious jealousy and bitterness of those who haven't shared this heritage is plain to see . Other than apparent envy , The cause of blame levied by the same bunch of those , not even understanding the law abiding majority of gun owners , is misappropriated ! It is the same lame liberal intellectual revolutionary reactionaries that have lessoned by moronic, aggressive legislation , the impact of a legitimate prosecution , justice and incarceration system in the US, in the last forty or so years .
  
  IF you seriously want to see a change in the amount of criminal , mentally defected , terrorist use of guns , Man up ! Write your congressman ! Pick up the collective responsibility that liberals have otherwise normally drop into the hands "someone else " , demand more prosecution -WITHOUT PLEA BARGAINS, prison terms DO provide deterrence . To say otherwise is lame . You all claim that our prisons are over populated , so let out the non violent criminal and demand more time for VIOLENT criminals .
  
  A fraction of a percent of gun'' owners'' who commit gun crimes DO NOT make the remaining 99.999 percent guilty ! You should know that based upon the amount of education most of you have apparently wasted . The supreme courts agree with gun owners , They support ,promoted and protected the second amendment over and over again since the beginning of America . It is simply the paranoia of basic public opinions and election year static which change according to the weather that give any of you any amount of legitimacy even vaguely approaching truth .
  
  The non- gun owners , anti- gun , anti -second amendment people here sound more like juvenile elementary class presidential candidates than truth or solution seekers ! What you all need to do is Man -Up on REALITY . Present REAL facts , UNBIASED third world statistics will never cut it in forums . Just like they don't cut it in supreme court arguments .
  
  Real gun owners don't suffer the same paranoia that you claim , we have no fear of tyranny , we don't fear the night , we actually enjoy contact with other like minded people , we do not fear invasion from in our outside of our country . Yuppies love to jog , hippies love to toke , liberals love to whine , gun owners love to shoot , collect , or hunt , we neither need your approval or ask for it . Our government either fears or respects us . The supreme court does as well , to bad the media doesn't , to bad the left doesn't.
  
  .
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: Here is what you said in your last paragraph:
  
  "Real gun owners don't suffer the same paranoia that you claim , we have no fear of tyranny , we don't fear the night , we actually enjoy contact with other like minded people , we do not fear invasion from in our outside of our country . Yuppies love to jog , hippies love to toke , liberals love to whine , gun owners love to shoot , collect , or hunt , we neither need your approval or ask for it . Our government either fears or respects us . The supreme court does as well , to bad the media doesn't , to bad the left doesn't."
  
  Here is what the 2nd amendment says:
  
  "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 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sharing your guns with your family. It'a about security and a militia and not infringing on the right of the people, so they can have a free state. You have come full circle. It's very patriotic to have your government fear you. Why should the media and the left fear the gun culture, because you are armed?
  
  I'm sure you are an educated person and have heard of the 80/20 rule and I'm sure you fit into the 80 percent of the gun people who are law abiding citizens, but more than likely, there are 20 percent of gun possessors that don't. It's not just about you. It's about the greater good of the country. I know you say "Why should I have to jump through the hoops, when I'm a law abiding citizen who has done nothing wrong." It's for the same reason we all have to take off our shoes at the airport. It's to ensure the greater good of the country. I see you are a poet. Poets are usually compassionate people. What happened to you?
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I never discussed half of the things that you are talking about in your comment.
  
  I said that I had no problems with hunters.
  
  I think that many people that insist on slinging weapons around hide behind them and are really quite cowardly at the core. This Zimmerman character was a case in point. I just want to know WHY, and you know something, I don't think you really know. You want to arm grade school teachers, animal house college students, 10 year olds. A society bristling with insecurity and distrust is their solution to our problems. Regardless of what you say, the Right is all about fear, fear of the very fact that the sun will rise on a new day.
  They remain hopeless anachronistas in a modern world that they can't cope with. And like any relic, they and their ideas will be consigned piece by piece to the museum where they belong. The Right has always been more comfortable with violence or the threat of same as an alternative to the proper interchange of ideas that recognizes the importance of persuasion with a democracy.
  
  So, I did not argue against harsher sentencing for those the commit crimes using firearms. So what is your point here?
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Gun Control =Guilt Deflection ,
  
  Blah Blah ,Blah ,, One more rant about the collective cultural guilt complex !
  
  I wonder when Americans, like anti gun people , will stop continually pointing fingers at gun -owners , After all ,You have raised just one more generation of spoiled ,entitled little snot filled social deviants , You have fed them on the new child raising concept that they are entitled to everything and have to contribute nothing in their life endeavors , spoiled them all through the twelve grades of school , sickeningly shipped them off to college where all of a sudden they have to face the real fact's of life . That they are not anything "special " , that they can't blame someone else for their social failings , All of a sudden now they have to get out of bed in the morning and face the sad fact that they aren't prepared for the realities of life . Almost always , after all the facts are sorted out ,the perpetrators of MASS KILLINGS are NOTHING MORE than twisted little psycho- socio-path's , with a mommy spoiling complex ! They almost always live in the "crib " basements rooms of broken , twisted homes , one ear always pugged into a fantasy world of their cyber pacifiers , sucking on the nipple of self entitlements started by an over indulging mommy and daddy's.
  
  IT AINT' THE INANIMATE OBJECT , IT'S THE PERSON USING IT !.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You have a way with words I wish I had. I tried to get my kids to do things around the house like I had to do, get some small grass cutting or paper delivery jobs and not be so lazy and wanting. The wife fought me every step of the way. I have one still at home 30 yrs old. The wife wont collect any room and board from her. She has a ~32 hrs. a week job that pays her more than I receive from my sole source of income, Social Security.
  
  I was reminded to by Marco Rubio‎ on the Glenn Beck show today that the EPA and many other agencies have bought huge numbers of guns and ammo. What for? He didn't know either. Something is not right!
  We need to own the same type arms to be prepared for?? Does the left./libs-anti guns crowd know?
  
  Yes, I do listen to the right wing wacko programs like: Beck, Hannity, Levin, O'Riley, Coast to coast, Ground Zero and others.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Us libs don't live in constant fear. I'm curious about how you plan to fight the government and win if you can't even fight your wife/daughter and win.
  
  Sorry, that's a joke that I couldn't resist.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You don't know how many times I got a death threat from both! Or threatened with calling the law on me.
  It just wasn't worth it. So I just bitched a lot and held my ground. One of the kids even tried to have me kicked out of the house because he thought it belonged to wife and kids. Like his friend because of divorce. I would have gladly left but had low paying jobs, thanks to affirmative action, being drafted and other factors. I would of liked wife and kids to leave too. She had worse part time job than I had. And with both low incomes had to eventually file bankruptcy in 2008.
  
  I do not own a gun because I fear for me life at the hand of whako kid or wife. If I had more reasonable family than I may have owned.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback:
  
  Does this sound similar to your post?
  
  I wonder when Americans like gun people will stop continually pointing fingers at gun control people? After all, you have raised one more generation of paranoid, snot filled, social deviants that think they are living in colonial times. You have fed them the new child raising concept that they are entitled to only what they have and contribute nothing to the greater good of the country, sickeningly shipped them off to the NRA, where they are led to believe all social ills can be cured with guns. They have to face the facts of life, they are nothing special, that they can't blame someone else for their social failings. All of sudden now they have to get out of bed in the morning and face the sad facts that they are not prepared for the realities of life. Almost always, after all the facts are sorted out they, are living in a pretend world where the 2nd amendment protects them against all the evils that can be thrown at them and that any semblance of liberalism can be equated to the nanny state, entitlements, and big government. They must always live in the world of right wing propaganda to convince themselves that they are better than everybody else, started by the good ole' boy mentality of red-neck, illiterate, hypocrites that doesn't even have the common sense to realize when they are being taken of advantage of financially by the very institutions they idolize. They are always ready to blame the progressive liberals for all of their ills,, instead looking in their own backyard.
  
  THE INANIMATE OBJECT BECOMES A KILLING MACHINE WHEN IN THE WRONG HANDS, BECAUSE THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS EVEN THE WRONG HANDS TO HAVE THEM.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Your's , , from the beginning, has sounded like a rant of mindless origin , At least you are consistent !
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: You don't even recognize your own words. All is did was replace of few of your words and turned it around to apply to conservatives...so much for being observant. You are so rapped up on your rants, that you don't even know when it is so easy to say the same thing about conservatives.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Of course I saw and recognized your lame intent , But to compare the right to the left ? I think not , The left is but a memory of what it once was , If the left was still that which was traditionally left in America ?:..........That would be promote understandable and even fairly debatable views . The new left is however far different in America than once was ., pseudo socialistic policy abounds in every liberal rant of the last few years , it's as if steroids were the lefts new illicit drug of choice .
  
  You speak as if the views of both were still patriotic , however the new left is uncompromising and uncompromisingly indifferent to our very constitution and the rights protected within !
  reply report
66
Doug Cutlerposted 9 years ago
You are aware that if one of the moderate supreme court judges dies or can no longer perform that Obama may appoint another gay, abortionist, rob SS, overly political correct judge. And the house and senate will do a pee poor job of vetting as in the recent past. I have seen crap stopped or passed by one vote. All they need is one more lib and we're screwed.
We the people should have a say in that process and not just by voting in or out politicians. By then it may be too late. It may be to late now! More by-by America as we knew it.
They could have a law passing frenzy and you know what will be on the menu.
reply report
1. 0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Up until now at least the courts have supported the second , they have revoked unconstitutionally based newer local and state restrictions . I believe that after Obama anything he does will be repealed . If the Clinton Dynasty continues , we may have a problem . I'm not too worried about election year hysteria .
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The SC has no choice but to keep upholding the 2nd Amendment, it is one of the clearest, succinct amendments we have. Where we have had really bad decisions are interpretations where the bigotry of the time was able to shine through in individual conservative justices, e.g., the 10th, 14th, and 15th Amendments
  
  Unfortunately for you, barring some findings by the FBI that destroy her, Hillary Clinton will be your next President. Why do I say that? Because, from the get-go she has 283 electoral votes in the bag against anybody but John Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Mark Rubio. compared to 101 for the Conservatives. For the latter group, I have it at 201 and 148. http://hubpages.com/hubtool/edit/4605889?edit=1
  reply report
2. 78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  an obama appointee may do all you mention except rob SS. it's republicans who want to do that.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I heard the dems want to also. And 401's etc. Obama has got money from somewhere recently. They would not say where from. They are in co-hoots as far as I can determine. Need a no party system and moral leaders.
  reply report
3. 81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Appointment of Supreme Court Justices with approval by the Senate is the Constitutional way it is done, is it not? I thought that all you Right Guys were all about the Constitution, not just the parts that you choose the cherry pick.
  
  I want Obama to put in a moderate to liberal jurist, and we can dispense with Thomas and Scalia. I hope that the president does just what you fear he can and may do.
  
  And no, I don't want the Supreme court subjected to a plebiscite, where they can be affected by all the dirty rightwing influence peddling, money changers and such shenanigans.
  reply report
94
harrynielsenposted 9 years ago
The second amendment was never intended to protect the lone gunman. It was meant to allow citizens to organize against the government in an armed manner. Maybe, a dubious situation in today's society, but it is still the law of the land. Perhaps, if our politicians would interpret and enforce the law in that manner, this might be a small step in reducing the huge number of gun deaths that this country sees every year.
reply report
1. 60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What you claim might be accurate in "Republican PRETEND Land", but in the REAL World, your "Tyranny" theory has already been Dis-credited ~ the 2cnd Amendment does not even come CLOSE to articulating this ~
  
  Moreover, the Founders, as drunk and promiscuous as they were , NEVER granted "ARMS Permission" to a bunch of intoxicated pilgrims, ESPECIALLY to be used AGAINST the very Federal Government in which they were or would be EMPLOYED ~
  
  OUR Founders were far short of Brilliant, however, they were not completely DUMB either ~
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ALternaTIVE PRIME Lets see IF I can type this LIKE you do , for MORE ATTENTION , Our for-fathers were far wiser , far more articulate and LESS dramatic than YOU are !
  reply report
66
Doug Cutlerposted 9 years ago
Matt Bevin, senator of Kentucky reaffirmed the EPA and regime has little jurisdiction in the state over the coal industry.
The EPA + regime is trying to kill the coal industry. Bevin seems to have a pair and is prepared to
fight. As mentioned early. Why did the EPA and other agencies buy all those weapons and ammo?
Seems like the EPA + regime have more in mind than just kill the coal industry!
reply report
1. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Doug Cutler:
  
  You have to quit believing the stuff that you read and hear on the right wing propaganda machine, including conspiracy theory. Don't believe it until you have substantiated it is true.
  
  Here is what snopes says:
  
  http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
<"On the other hand, the gov't is responsible for making sure deadly weapons do not fall into the hands of irresponsible people whether they are a criminal "or not".> My Esoteric

Why?
reply report
1. 84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  why is the gov't responsible?
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Each person is responsible and must suffer the consequences of his actions.
  
  Especially in the light of utilitarian theory where the greatest number of people should benefit.
  Only a few people will benefit if all guns are removed from society compared to the many who will be left defenseless in the event of any number of possible scenarios which could occur from within or without the country.
  
  To say only some weapons are going to be available to the gun-buying citizenry is another matter.
  Is such legislation practical?
  If it was, we would have been better able to regulate guns/arms.
  
  Being subject to gun violence and natural disaster is part of living in the United States
  and in the World.
  
  After all, an asteroid could hit and cause us to go extinct …
  any second!
  
  Shall we legislate asteroids?
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  KATHRYN L HILL:
  
  Gun people worry about tyranny, shouldn't they worry about asteroids as well? What if an asteroid hits the earth tomorrow? There is about as much a chance of that happening as there is tyranny. it is right wing propaganda and fear is one of the strongest motivators that they use.
  
  I have observed that gun people for the most part, are conservatives and conservative by their very nature are very protective of their domain. That includes land, dwellings, money, space, self righteousness, and conserving the status quo. They are both homophobic and xenophobic They are easily influenced by sound bites from the right wing propaganda machine because if it fits their agenda, that's all they need. They are very faithful to their values and belief systems. In some cases it, is blind faith. I heard my sister law say, "My parents were republicans, their whole life, therefore, I'm not going to change and will be a conservative republican for the rest of my life."
  
  They respond to Dog Whistle phrases, like Big Government, Entitlements, Transfer of Wealth, Community Organizer, Welfare Queen, "Obama is coming for their guns", and many others phrases that resonate with them and are coded to mean something else just for them.
  
  They don't like change, especially new technology that they have to learn. I have so many conservative friends that either do not have cell phones or if they do they are flip phones. They are the last ones to come on board with technological changes. They can't help it. It's in their DNA, that's why they are protective of their domains.
  
  In prehistoric times, it served them well to survive in very hostile environments. That's how they see things today. The progressive liberals, foreigners, and what they perceive as big government are their hostile environment and a threat to their well being. Guns to them are just like clubs and spears were to their caveman ancestors. They are very protective of the 2nd amendment as it gives them the basis from which to protect and if necessary fight for their domain against all odds, even the might of the United States Military.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, Peoplepower, well said....
  reply report
  60
  FishMountTroyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You are lost. I'm guessing you have lived in the city your whole life and have no need for a gun. Tell the farmer who grows your veggies that he can't have his gun on his farm. Let me know how that goes. It's funny how all of your big words and observations all tend to try and belittle conservative thoughts. It's in their DNA, really? It's in their DNA. Now you are a scientist. That's sad man. It's time for you to go play bingo with your flip phone friends who im sure are much more confident wth their lives and don't need a smart phone to feel smart and be happy.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody is talking about farmers, why do college students need to pack on campus or why do you need to conceal carry on the way to the grocery store and back? Conservatives are the ones that carry on about this stuff, but I never ever really figured out who would be dumb enough to allow those barely old enough to drink to conceal carry a firearm into a tavern (Hint: it begins with a T and ends with an S)..... or perhaps who would teach 5 year olds barely able to walk how to handle a 22 calibre hand gun, for what purpose? Farming, ranching and hunting has got nothing to do with these things. What is your sane conservative answer to this question? Is it supposed to be a manly right of passage? If this constitutes conservative thinking then it is flintstonian at its core.
  reply report
  60
  FishMountTroyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No one is debating the right to carry a gun on campus. This is about gun rights. Whether you are a farmer, hunter or city home you should have the right to protect your dwelling. Start focusing on mental illness awareness and parenting and violence will decrease much quicker than trying to ban guns. And by he way banning guns will only relive them from law abiding citizens not criminals.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You guys are good at avoiding issue and being evasive. Same ole tired bromides about banning guns from law abiding citizens and such. You all are obsessed with it like a toddler and his pacifier.
  
  What are you talking about? Focusing on mental illness, parenting?
  
  I can never get a straight answer with the Rightwing gun folks, why do you need to sleep with your gun have it everywhere concealed or not.
  
  The right to carry into all and every place is at the heart of the debate, no one is trying to to deny the anachronistic rightwing primatives their scatterguns.
  
  This is a philosophical question, in the same vein as why I see grown men walking around with their pants hanging down their butts with their underwear in full display.
  
  Why people in pickup trucks have tractor tires that require an elevator to get to the cab.
  
  Why people feel the need to build their audio system in their cars and have the volume so high that anything within a 100 feet radius is shaken to its foundation?
  
  The poignant question for the gun nuts, why the concealed carry people want to play Secret Squirrel or Bat Materson while they pick up half a gallon of milk at market?
  
  (Is there really that much of a self defense issue all of the time or are you just looking for an opportunity of confrontation to get to use your new toy?)
  
  I abandoned all of these absurdities as an adolescent, but for the rightwinger adolescent reasoning and thinking is standard equipment.
  
  I am not talking about 'rights', I am talking about why, why is the solution to violence with firearms just arming more people with more firearms?
  You just don't stand by your gun, but you hide behind them.
  
  The rightwinger is inferior and childlike with a siege mentality, why is that not correct?
  
  I have to be blunt to get you people to stop dancing around my questions.. so sorry in advance. Who knows, perhaps, you don't know the answer and won't admit such.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  One huge problem is cultural. Teaching the young that taking is alright because the deserve it.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting thought, but can you expound upon it a little?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Two different groups. One from where I spent the first 40 years of my life in Toledo, Oh. The other from Deer born, Mi. area. Between about 1988 and 1998 when I quit dealing with them. Then lived in a small town 8 miles away from Toledo in the farmlands.
  
  Group one moving in from the south. Taught their young that certain people owed them and it was OK to take because we had money and what they took would be covered by insurance that we all supposedly had. Or it was just the normal things they did. Even took from their own.
  
  I am talking from personal experience and not anything I read. I tried to get along but was abused several times just walking or riding me bike. Was even bashed over the head in an attempted robbery. Lucky a car just rounded the corner and they took off leaving me with 12 stitches and a day in the hospital under observation.
  
  Need more? I have a bunch more. All from personal attacks and dealings. Could write a 1000 word or more hub just on that.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thugs are thugs, I don't think that there
  was some sort of national conspiracy among this group one to steal and redistribute. It is no different than Jesse James and Bonnie and Clyde.
  
  If by group 1 , you mean black folks, you can say it and I am not offended. I want your honest opinion, and I can't get that if you are more afraid of stepping on a land mine.
  
  You are not the only one that has been bullied in life, I just have found alternative attitudes to that of taking a siege mentality for the rest of my days.
  
  Is that why people that may share your experience feel the need to have to be armed at all places at all times to preclude the possibility of assault against their person? Are all the varied geographical areas where one might live with in our society really that dangerous? I mean outside South Central LA, South Side Chicago or perhaps East LA?
  
  Maybe, you should write a hub, I would read it to better understand the conservative and why and where they coming from....
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If you grew up in the 50's and 60's you would see this in Toledo. Just walk down a neighborhood that has turned black and you get pushed around. If you are on a bike they try to take it from you. In the parks they push small white kids off the swings and such. I even heard on a CB radio two were talking about what white house was to be robbed. Many years later some have turned from those evil ways and come out and told me they used to be that way. Can't say what percent was bad like that but a much higher percent than the other minorities in Toledo. Heard from a few that they were taught that it was OK because the insurance company would cover anything missing. These were from 7 and 8 year olds.
  So, what culture taught them that. What were you taught? Have you been abused by white folk?
  report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  It is always both amusing, and troubling, to hear the Fox giving us his assessment of "The Trouble With Chickens". It's like stirring up a bunch of muddy water, and then blaming the people who have no choice but to drink it for making themselves sick! A majority of violence that has been directed at whites by any minority in the past , as well as the present, is reactionary violence. It is primarily a symptom of oppression. We can see the similarities when we study the English occupation of Ireland. Much of the violence from the Irish side has also been reactionary. It is simply the Law of Gravity. If you beat a people down long enough and hard enough, at some point, symptoms will be manifested through violence.
  
  But having said that, the historical record shows that, save for the Nate Turner Rebellion, black people have been remarkably calm considering the evil they have been forced to endure beneath the yolk of white supremacy; during and after the antebellum. Just imagine how whites would feel if the blacks had risen up after the Civil War and forced the Europeans on to reservations; forced them to abandon the English language and learn Swahili, and then erected a monument in the Black Hills bearing the likeness of the white man's oppressors. Imagine the little white kids reading about Snow Black and the Seven Dwarfs, and being taught either directly, or through osmosis, that white is ugly, and black is beautiful. But the white man never looks at things from the perspective of the Indigenous or the African. They reason only from a Eurocentric perspective. Read and learn.
  report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  None of the founding fathers were black.
  UH OH !!!!!!
  report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Now you are giving me permission to bash black people over the head, steal the property from under them, just start hitting them while walking down the street. I have had all this done to me. A typical white guy. I do not use the bad actions of those that abused me as an excuse to do so to them. So, who is being more tolerant here? I can't help it if other groups can't use more restraint.
  report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I grew up about the same time, I am black and I got pushed around. There is never any honor among thieves. It is not a black thing, it is a thug thing.
  
  Growing up with Black kids in the public school system, there is a cultural norm that said that to be 'accepted' you had to be a juvenile delinquent and cling to sports as the only acceptable way to excel. Otherwise, it was fist fights at school expressing itself as jelousy for attempting to succeed in the traditional way, which was considered acting 'white'. It is an aberration that reflects an underlying lack of confidence in the 'system' and their chances to compete and following parents that could only offer despair as that is all that they have known.
  
  Parenting is important, academics was important at our home and it was better to not come home at all than to come home with a bad report card. In spite of all the economic, social and political disadvantages black folks face, when you bring children into the world, parents have a responsibility to steer them properly.
  
  Yes, you cannot be Black in America without being angry about why things always seem to be the way they are. Keeping a cool head during my period of economic ascent allowed me to outlast my adversaries as my enemies always had a way of disappering as long as I kept my nose to the grindstone and not be distracted from the goal.
  
  http://hubpages.com/politics/One-Progre … ica-Part-I
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Studies have shown that electronic gadgets are like drugs and are as addictive.
  I would think that those that can get along without them are more stable. Like those that defended us in the two great wars. They were just every day farmers, store clerks, just out of school etc.
  What will happen when we get another huge sun flare like in the 1860's? Or a electromagnetic pulse in the atmosphere? Everything that has integrated circuits is fried, that is not specially protected. Cars, phones, power grid. By-by cities A Prime. I would rather be out in the sticks where people know how to live off the land and may communicate using the old fashioned tube radios and dial type phones.
  Same with transportation. Back to the old points and carbs, or diesel without any electronics.
  Same reason I don't like any weapon with electronic controls.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  Exactly. If an asteroid or other outside force hits the power stations / satellites / technology grids / etc. we are left to our own human instincts! Heaven help those who cannot function without their precious technological devices!
  
  Gun regulations are already in place.
  Why are they so hard to follow?
  
  Innocent people will not have guns, but criminal crazies will always be able to get their villainous creepy hands on guns. How is that fair?
  How will we be able to protect ourselves?
  
  Thankfully, I am a trained Ninja.
  and I have all those cool Ninja weapons.
  Maybe I should become an instructor.
  I wish.
  http://www.weapons-universe.com/ninja-weapons.htm
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  It is not necessary to try and belittle conservative thoughts; no more than it is necessary to belittle a 6 year old child for believing in Santa Claus. I grew up on a farm, and my parents didn't teach me to be stupid. Of course a lot of the people in the rural mid-west are not very progressive,which is why I didn't stick around. In a world of gun-violence, it is quite remarkable that anyone would suggest that gun ownership was the way to the promised land. If killing people could pave the way to peace , then we would have already arrived. How many people have to die before the Archie Bunker crowd finally realizes that violence only begets more violence? Rather than obsessing about guns so much, conservatives need to get hooked on phonics. Education helps to reduce paranoia.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The shock jocks is at it again , Trying to dream up a nanny state that cures all our ills , But first they have to convince this government that our ills are BECAUSE of conservative America , that IS the real problem , You haven't been able to do THAT for the first 250 or so years ,and then socialists got a collective woody when Obama came along , thinking that the savior king has arrived .
  
  AS a conservative I can tell you that almost every other gun owner I know fears neither this Government nor invasion from another's , We own simply guns out of the heritage of our family structure , generally rural , living in some part off the natural world of hunting or fishing as a way of life , But then , IF YOU truly grew up in a rural farmland you already know this .
  
  Leftist's ideal government is the Orwellian one , except you envision the leader as a nanny leader , "Oh save us from ourselves " , socialism , that is exactly what liberals wanted , dream and conspired with in the theory of gaining Obama's presidency . Your bitter outlook and disillusion now is but another bitter ending ,
  
  Liberals already know this but here goes anyway , Gun ownership , and what type of guns are being discussed here , has very little to do with gun crimes in America . The only studies worth reading are actual FBI studies . Most of the others are tainted beyond most peoples believability anyway.
  
  Guns don't kill people , morons do .
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Which is exactly why sensible gun control is needed, Ahorseback ... to keep guns out of the hands of morons.
  
  Or do you think morons should have guns to? And if you don't, how do you propose to stop them from getting them? Taking them away (only so they can get another one from family and friends) after they maim or kill somebody with it?
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "sensible gun control " , would be a pleasure ,
  
  We don't even have a comprehensive mental health care system in America . Thank you Obama care .
  
  The problem however is the not the second ,............ It's prosecution , hyper-plea bargaining , lame liberal judicial agenda's in courts , lack of incarceration according to original law , It's uncontrolled gang enforcement , it's lack of ethical , moral law enforcement . Its the social " babysitter "mentality in law enforcement , prosecution and the entire judicial system .
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  HOO RAH WrenchBiscuit. I see that the theme of your respondents is to oppose education.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  One more Nanny Rant ,
  This post deserves a sitting as the poster child of the new liberal America , I propose this intended disillusion of the left is necessary , socialist's leaders world wide have had to tear away traditional beliefs of a country before they can win over a populace , In most opinions leftist's in America wouldn't even fit into the true socialist bag , there is too much need for entitlement in our leftist's , too much dependency on a nanny state .
  
  You actually served in the military ? Taking an Oath to serve and protect the constitution of America even to your death ? How does it feel now to be treasonous of that oath ? The constitution of the United States is the basis of all law . Too bad you cannot change it . Clintons have had at least sixteen years , Obama the same . Hasn't worked yet has it ? The second amendment will stand as long as America exists Peoplepower ,
  
  True conservatives in America fear nothing .
  reply report
  60
  FishMountTroyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes sir. God Bless America & Our Constitution.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  You commented, "Guns don't kill people, morons do." Yes that is true, even on Brokeback Mountain. But unfortunately, it's the morons who want to own guns in the first place! But not just any 'ol kind of gun.
  
  When the morons are not out killing Bambi,Bugs Bunny, or listening to Lee Greenwood songs,they are whining about the right to own a gun that holds 300 rounds in the magazine; a gun that under ideal conditions can kill over 200 people in 60 seconds. Just look at all the mass shooters during the last 20 years.
  
  We can see that a majority have been white, uneducated, and not very intelligent people. Let's face it. Where is the wisdom in killing a bunch of innocent people, and then either killing yourself, or spending the rest of your natural life in prison? These are the people you are defending. You are defending the right of every moron in the United States to have their own private stockpile of weapons. And what is the purpose of a weapon? The purpose is to kill.
  
  But now I will share the superior intellect: Many speak of owning guns as a means of protection; a means of preserving their own life, or the lives of their loved ones.
  
  HEAR YE! HEAR YE! A gun cannot preserve a man's life! A gun can only kill a man. A gun can only destroy. And there is a mountain of empirical evidence to back up my claim. Not one single individual in the history of the world has ever preserved their life with a gun!
  
  If any should wish to argue, then please ask yourselves:. Where is the man who used a gun to preserve his life in 1776? Can anyone here tell us his name, and where he is living today. Or can anyone tell us where to find the woman who preserved her life with a gun in 1897? Where are all of these amazing people? Of course, I will tell the world where they are. Their bodies lie rotten in the ground, or deposited in a forgotten funeral urn. The gun did not preserve their mortal life, nor did it protect them from anything at all. It only gave them the power to kill. This is an important teaching that I am afraid many do not have the wisdom to understand. It is not unlike the teaching of Jesus that admonishes us to turn the other cheek. In Matthew 24-26 Jesus also said:
  
  " If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"
  
  We can clearly see that Jesus did not support the Second Amendment. It only follows that the United States was never truly a Christian nation. To paraphrase the testimony of Bon Jovi, "Shot through the heart and you're to blame. You give Jesus, a bad name."
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  In Matthew 24-26 Jesus also said:
  You will have to show me this as originally written in the original language before those butt kissing bishops at Nicene and other councils changed everything to suit what the Roman Emperor and his control freak wife wanted. Do some research man!
  
  They were of the collective mind and banished and burned books of those that believed in individual
  salvation. I mean they invited about 20 from the later belief and had about 188 bishops that went along to get along. Lopsided vote if ever I saw any! Oh wait! Pittsburgh voted 100% for Obama? Give me a freak'n break!! http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp
  Massive voter fraud has been reported in areas of OH and FL, with PA, WI and VA,
  
  This an example of why I do not trust the regime, (Dem. or Rep.) or libs in general.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The rightwinger just spouts off about Christianity without any real desire to grasp it true tenets. Gandhi once said that if people really lived by the example set by Jesus, the world would be a different place.
  
  So, the Right, being the useful idiots they are, have bought off on the concept of a 'corporate Jesus' instead. Considering there is a Satan, he thrives on useful idiots, weak minded fools in the face of a Jedi Mind Trick.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  LOL!
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Right winger?? Biscuits sounds ultra left to me. He indicated in earlier posts he was anti-white, anti- Jewish anti-gun. Seems to think he is Christ like
  I think he works in one of those rest homes where he can take advantage of white folk. Rough them up a little and steal from them as a way to get revenge.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback and all who took exception to my post.
  
  Do you deny that conservatives are protective of their domain?
  
  Do you deny that you don't want your country back?
  
  Do you deny that you are not homophobic and/or xenophobic?
  
  Do you deny that you are faithful to your agenda and that liberals are to blame for all the ills of this country?
  
  Do you deny that you respond to those coded words in Dog Whistle politics that resonate in you soul?
  
  Do you deny that liberals, foreigners,and big governments are a threat to your well being?
  
  Do you deny that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms and protect yourself from all enemies real or imagined?
  
  ahorseback:
  
  All of these questions I just asked are from my post that you called "The poster child of the new liberal America ,"
  
  "You actually served in the military ? Taking an Oath to serve and protect the constitution of America even to your death ? How does it feel now to be treasonous of that oath ?"
  
  Do you know how stupid that sounds? Fist off, that is a loaded question that assumes I'm treasonous. What makes you think I wouldn't defend my country? I have served my time and I'm 77 years young, if necessary, I would serve my country again. You on the other hand live in a different America. You think the real America is going to turn on you. You are ready to defend yourself against the real America, which includes liberals?
  
  I am not treasonous of any oath, but you are, because you are ready to turn against the real America and its Constitution. How does that feel? All you have done, since Reagan was in office is arm yourself to be ready to turn against your country, if it doesn't fit your idea of what America should be.
  
  "The constitution of the United States is the basis of all law .Too bad you cannot change it . Clintons have had at least sixteen years , Obama the same . Hasn't worked yet has it ? The second amendment will stand as long as America exists Peoplepower ,"
  
  You don't have to change the constitution in order to affect change. That's why they are called, bills, amendments and Acts. I know you know better!
  
  The Republicans have had since the time of Reagan and it hasn't worked yet. I don't want to change the 2nd amendment. My point in this forum is to point out the dilemma that the 2nd amendment creates because it allows easy access to guns by everybody, even the ones who shouldn't have them. You are the one who goes off on these rants about the whole country is going down the tubes because of liberals and their "snot nose kids" they are bringing into the world that ruins everything with their "nanny state mentality."
  
  "True conservatives in America fear nothing."...Therein, you have proved my point, why don't you try growing a pair?
  
  Please answer the questions at the top and don't answer them by asking other questions first.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You libs will serve to protect your way of life. More so now since the country is almost lib now.
  Members of the various racial and political groups have fought in the wars to protect all and allow
  you to have a voice and guns.
  
  I can give answers to all your other points too. What is the use?
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Of course the country is leaning lib. That is an enevitability as certain as yesterday becoming today and today becoming tomorrow...
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Because part of the contract the People have with their gov't is that in return for giving up some of their liberty, that gov't has the responsibility to protect the citizenry from the harmful acts of external and internal threats. The Preamble to our Constitution says it, of course, much better than I ever could.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  We have been given the choice to own/bear arms. It is a guaranteed right.
  Yet you want the gov't to take it away.
  Or what?
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You R SIMPLY Wrong Kathryn ~ Individuals who are NOT affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" do NOT have a 2cnd Amendment RIGHT to "Own/Bear Arms" ~
  
  You might have a point in "Republican PRETEND Land", but NOT in the REAL World where we Understand and Comprehend the Queen's English ~
  
  A Mis-Interpretation of said Amendment is the ONLY reason why an individual can own a gun in today's society, but it's Definately NOT a Constitutional Right with intent by OUR Founders ~
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Still claiming that "people" means "people in the army"? And still losing the debate because of it?
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  FORTUNATELY, I'm NOT "Home Schooled" like many "Remote Republicans" and THANK God for that, which means I Understand & Comprehend the Queen's English quite well ~
  
  As usual, conservative republicans CONTINUE to Subtract, Add, Delete & Omit Text from the 2cnd Amendment at will so they can "FANTASIZE" about what they WISH the Constitution says ~ Unfortunately for them though, the ONLY place that NONSENSE is allowed is indeed in "Republican PRETEND Land", a distant place somewhere in space where Actual FACTS have as much weight as a Pilgrim's Turkey Feather ~
  
  wilderness and or Kathryn, why don't you show the class EXACTLY where the word "OWN" appears in the 2cnd Amendment?? ~ ~ GOOD*Luck
  
  Losing the DEBATE?? ~ The debate has Ended LONG Ago, this is just an informal Banter Forum, NOW it's time for REAL Action to Protect the Collective Community from an EXESSIVELY Liberal Distribution of Guns ~
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I an an individual. I have had problems with your collective township dictators in my local community.
  Again: Why would anyone believe anything you rant about when you say things that are not true?
  Again: example: You said that the army did not give out bullets to the citizens to kill off the buffalo.
  Do the web search and weep!
  
  I showed you perfect examples of not changing a single word in the 2nd and you still continue your rant.
  Capitalization and punctuation. The founders and early leaders did it several times. Do the research!
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Why would anyone believe anything you have to say? You have told us how wrong we are when the info is on the net. Example: You said that the army did not give out free bullets to kill the buffalo.
  Did you even do a do a web search? "army gives out free bullets to kill buffalo" Or Just use your own biased thinking to say similar "free bullets to kill buffalo didn't happen" They army even let those that did not have a gun borrow one of theirs. The army arranged and guided large hunting parties of civilian hunter and even foreigners.
  
  This would counter your continuous and totally wrong rant about guns only for the militia or military.
  How about police and other lawmen? They were not in the military or militia either.
  I will not believe a word you say because of proof to the contrary. You have to prove everything you say is in fact true. Too late for that? I leave you to your delusions. Stay in your precious cities when TSHF.
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
<There is about as much a chance of AN ASTEROID HITTING THE EARTH as there is TYRANNY. It is right wing propaganda and fear is one of the strongest motivators that they use.> peoplepower73

Ha Ha Ha !!!!!!!!

Tyranny is always on the brink. It is called HUMAN NATURE!

You and anti NRA-ists are threatening to diminish gun rights!
The NRA has your number, however. Good for them.
reply report
1. 0
  Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn, it seems to me that many on the left have a shangri-la view of human nature, they believe that we've somehow actually improved as people since the first humans. This is, of course, complete rubbish, and is readily obvious to them if they take a serious look at history. As you say, we're no less vulnerable to tyranny now than in the day of the founding; but in fact we're arguably more vulnerable because our federal government is huge and has been far from accountable for many years. Most people are n't paying attention as long as they're getting more stuff from Nanny State, so our out of control government becomes less accountable month by month. The left loves huge government, so those on the left won't complain about it, but look to if for salvation.
  reply report
2. 60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  PERFECT Example of a "Republican PRETEND Land" scenario ~
  
  You will NEVER EVER find yourself in the position to Raise Arms Against a Tyrannicalsauris REX of a Federal Government, it just won't happen, EXCEPT maybe in your MIND, your Fantasies, in Storybook Land etc ~ It's simply a Delusional Thought perpetrated by Imbeciles like Sean Helmethead, Bill O'reilly, Rush Limbo etc ~
  
  Believe me, President Obama has better things to do than ROLL up on your front lawn in a TANK with a Battalion of Forces right behind him, it just will NOT Happen ~
  
  Interested in going to WAR with someone?? Why not get a little Nasty Against the Republicans who are attempting to SLASH Veterans Benefits, Terminate Social Security & Medicare, CUT Taxes for Corporations & Greedy Rich Individuals ~ That's a REAL War which is Happening Right NOW Right Here in AMERICA ~
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Or throw all the bums out and get in those that are really for the people.
  No more parties for you to bash. No more free bullets to throw at the buffalo.
  No more common core! That is going down by many school districts anyway.
  Even the unions are not happy with Obama care. Their lib thinking made them
  think he would exclude them from paying so much. Just like many who voted for
  him thought he was going to waltz in and give them everything they wanted.
  Most don't even know how the country runs and didn't care as long as they got theirs'.
  Just vote for him and not know or care about anything else. Low information voters.
  You can see who needs educating! Will, maybe not.
  I see who needs it.
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It's the Democratic/liberal shangri-la thinking that denies the realities of human nature.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Peoplepower ,

Conservatives never fear something made up of people , We do not fear our government , we fear the influences of people with liberal anti-constitutional agenda within the government . Not the same thing at all as the paranoia that you would like projected from conservatives in order to feed your weak arguments .

Fearing my government as an object , would be the same as fearing an inanimate object like a gun or a shovel . I will leave that type of paranoia to liberals , This president is however , the greatest threat to our form of central leadership , WHY ? Because he has no great love for his people , his country or the very process of government in this democracy - republic , Nor does he respect the constitution , His own choice of cabinet members has shown that over and over .

Are we protective of our domain , of course , as much or more than you are of yours . Domain - is at least a better choice of wording than you have used extensively in the past .

Do we want our country back , that is a silly question , our country [government ]is in flux , always has been , always will be , will we re-align policy , Yes . As soon as we re-gain control of our representation , which could be done collectively but for the paranoia of the left , and the pariah status the left has given this "leader ".

Do we deny we are faithful and blame the left , If you or anyone in the left would openly admit it you would at least be able to defend the FACT that the left is always ALL about more government and the right is always about less ! The naiveté' of the left choice is that more taxation goes along with more government and less freedom and that more only leads to socialization as in almost every European nation . The right truly knows , The best government is the least government

Homophobic , xenophobic ? ! No , we simply love traditional forms of living , where political correctness plays no part in our beliefs or policies , we leave that to the left. And yet we believe in the constitution and constitutional protection of all- more than the left .

Dog whistle politics ?, Talk about the well noted practice of the left !

Enemies real or imagined , Dumb question actually , the first part of the question is obvious , the second is just [imagined ] foolishness .

You yourself have proven the most challenging part of this argument in your original rant " The second amendment is outdated and CAUSES... mentally ill , .....gun crimes ............."? Any conservative worth a damned WILL argue against Changing the constitution as you propose or imply that which is needed !

"You would defend your country ........." but you would also change the constitution , By changing , altering , amending the second . That proves your insight into the constitutional rights , its causes , it's protections and probably even your conception of commitment to patriotism is weak .

"bill's ,amendments , acts ..........." Cannot change the original intent of the constitutional right , THAT is what you apparently don't understand , Can we have a right to keep and bear arms , amended to NOT keep and bear them ? No. Can we have a right to Free Speech and amend it to not speak freely ? , No.THAT IS WHY every unlawful bill has been repealed , .NOT because of the big bad republican wolf ! The acts , bill, ,amendments you have spoken of in gun restrictions were deemed UN-constitutional .

Why don't I "grow a pair" , how juvenile a thing to say , But then you have proven that over and over .
reply report
1. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback:
  
  This the the last time I'm going to say this. I don't want to change the core of the constitution or the 2nd amendment and I don't want your guns. We are a country of laws and laws are repealed and created every day. Just like the republicans want to repeal Obama Care and Just like they passed Citizens United that is the most unconstitutional law of modern times.
  
  For the last time. I know all about the first amendment. I agree with the entire bill of rights,except for the 2nd amendment. To use your words , it was written for an "inanimate object" that was used in 1791. The rest of the Bill of Rights still applies today because it doesn't deal with inanimate objects that were from another time and another place.
  
  You feel I'm juvenile because I told you to grow a pair. But it's O.K. for you to use all the juvenile, slanderous, and demeaning language that you use against liberals. That's what I call hypocrisy in action. There is another thing that I have observed about conservatives, they are very good at organizing and attacking their opponents. Liberals, not so much. It's not in their DNA.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The 2nd was not written about any object. It was about rights. 1. To form militias. 2. Those militias were not to infringe the right of the people to own arms. Reread it with this, new to you, concept.
  It was left to the states to come up with the details. With the one exception. They were not to infringe on the right of the people to bear arms. Simple, even A Primate should be able to see!
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What do you call Arms?
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The same weapons that a force, foreign or domestic would use. Assault rifles, rockets. etc. A rocket can take out the larger stuff. A tank is not very effective if you jam its communications.
  Besides a large number of the commanders will revolt and the patriots will get access to some of the same. I know. How do I know they will? How do you know they wont? If the regime asks the corrupt U.N.
  to do its dirty work then that is a signal to revolt.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, they all have to go, thanks to the mentally ill
  and of course due to peace with England.
  well, we hope….?
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  < If the regime asks the corrupt U.N. to do its dirty work then that is a signal to revolt.>
  It'll never happen in a million years, Doug … like an asteroid hitting the earth.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Have you never heard of Planet X? Due to make a return visit soon dragging a bunch of asteroids with it.
  Psycho psychics have seen the future of U.N. troops being on on our southern boarder with the pretense of keeping the peace.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Doug:
  
  You missed my point altogether. All arms are weapons. All weapons according to conservatives are inanimate objects. However as soon as one is loaded and fired by a human, it is no longer an inanimate object. It releases a projectile whose sole purpose is to hit it's target whether animate or inanimate.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And the same gun not only jumped right into the human hand but directly and intentionally killed humans without any human prompt whatsoever , taking over the human heart , mind and soul , all by itself .. I have personally witness this occurrence over and over again .
  
  That's why this paranoia of guns has caused many men to lock their guns up and hide the keys . Those guns are taking over the world ! Holding mankind prisoner , actually taking over the human world , causing so many zombies to wander the streets at night being hand lead by the gun !.
  
  Stay away from those guns ! They will take you over .
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  From the first you've not only implied but stated ".....the second amendment causes mentally ill to commit mass killings ,.....", How wrong you are now and were then . Since when does it invoke ......." juvenile ,slanderous , demeaning " to suggest naiveté in yours and many others inaccurate liberal rants . To tell someone to "grow a pair " as you state is all of the above ,does just that however . I do however ,understand the double standards of liberal , ethics and morals , especially in HP forums . however you are the one who might actually admit you called the second amendment the CAUSE of mass killings , a piece of parchment never caused a death , It's the man behind the knife , gun , bomb , car in a crowd , airliner, hand grenade , shoe bomb. ,etc ............it's the man , not the object .
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback:
  
  The 2nd amendment gives all people the right to bear arms, True of False?...True
  
  The mentally ill are people. True or False?...True
  
  The mentally ill commit mass killings using the arms they have the right to bear? True or False...True
  
  Therefore, the 2nd amendment gives all people the right to bear arms including the mentally ill...True or False...True
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  uh, no. There are laws against the mentally ill from acquiring guns. They lose their rights. Yes, before and after "the fact."
  FYI: There ARE laws, peoplepower 73…
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn: How many mentally ill people do you think follow laws, when it comes to possessing weapons? Do you think they follow the laws when they commit the mass killings? The kid that committed the mass shootings in Sandy Hook used guns that his Mother bought for him, then he killed her.
  
  Do you think that mentally ill people are going to go through the proper channels to purchase weapons and then get turned down because of background checks?
  
  Even at the time they did buy weapons, they were not mentally ill, but then something clicked in their brain and they used weapons that they acquired through legal means.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Let's face it, most conservatives see these tragic massacre shootings as having no more connection to the availability of firearms then that of the occasional man killed by a lightening strike during a storm reflecting a need to control thunder clouds.
  
  This mentally ill schtick is just a diversion. There is no way to determine if someone if mentally ill? What kind of mental illness is it? Does it manifest itself in homicidal violence and if it does can it be proven to the point that the victim can have his access to firearms restricted.
  
  There are issues surrounding civil liberties in this regard that are immense, and in my opinion, unmanageable.
  
  And as you say, they are not going to just volunteer to allow any background check that would or could incriminate them.
  
  This tack by the Right is just another red herring.....
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Possession of a firearm by the mentally ill is regulated by both state and federal laws.
  Federal Law
  Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
  
  http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and- … y-ill.aspx
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I thought I covered this in an earlier post. The 2nd left the details to the states. They are the ones to determine who should be excluded. But not the general population. Federalist paper 46.
  
  It is true if a state does not say one way or another. Go through each states' laws.
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
We the People Do Proclaim that all Gun and Arms should be removed off the face of the Earth in Each and every State in this Land known as Our Land, The United States of America, for the following reasons:

I. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and place due to the realities of modern day.

A. There are more mentally ill people than when the second amendment was written.

1. The second amendment is now CAUSING mentally ill people to commit MASS killings.

2. There is an increasing need to protect ourselves from these MASS killings which are being performed by the mentally ill in increasing numbers.

B. England's threat of tyranny is no longer a threat.

1. We do not need to protect themselves from governmental tyranny because, like an ASTEROID hitting the earth, it is very unlikely to happen in present day.

II. The second amendment has no place in today's world because of the ADVANCED technology of gun design.

A. The mentally ill easily procure of this type of high magazine weaponry through the modern invention of the INTERNET or through the assistance of family members, friends or acquaintances, despite there being laws on the books prohibiting the sale of guns to the mentally ill.

III. No one knows when a mentally ill person is going to commit a mass killing, because, like testing to see if a match lights, the killings are AFTER the SHOOTINGS.

A. In present times, the mentally ill are causing people to fear for their lives in movie theaters, classrooms and fast food restaurants, etc. ACROSS the country.
reply report
1. 60
  James Gaskinsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  First of all, the second amendment isn't making anybody do anything. People make up their own minds to do the crazy things they do. I'll accept the fact that mentally ill people need to be kept away from guns and that legislation should be enacted to make it illegal for them to own a gun. However, to kill the second amendment is foolish and down right dumb! If anything,m we need it now more than ever considering we have a government that looks to be taking aim at American citizens. While you were checking your facts, did you know that the Dept. of Homeland Security now officially considers you a possible domestic terrorist if you believe in your Constitutional rights. It's absolutely 100% true whether you believe it or not. The same Constitutional rights that nearly a million American soldiers have died defending. You know what? The threshold for your argument requires a serious debate. You can bring your so called facts and I'll bring mine. I know... we'll hire an impartial third party to moderate the debate. Even better, we could get Alex Trebeck to keep score and then we'll see who wins this battle of wits in an all-out fact based Jeopardy Gun Debate. Sadly for you, the only chance you would have to avoid total embarrassment would be not to show up because by the end of double Jeopardy you'd have a negative score and mine would be... lets just say beyond impressive. Sorry, but it would be hard not to blaze through such a contest when I was armed with the facts and you were armed with make believe that was created out of some progressive slumping suspicion based on fear and ignorance. Sorry lady, undisputed facts are impossible to defeat. The really cool part for me and us so called "gun-nuts" is that when Final Jeopardy came, and Trebeck read off the answer... “the liberal argument over gun control deserves this response from conservatives." The dramatic and correct conclusion I would write would not only be correct, but would also have Conservatives dancing in the isles as my answer would be "what is, From My Cold Dead Hands". The crowd would applaud, and Trebeck would say something clever into the camera like, "there you have it folks, the right answer wins it by a country mile".
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  James Gaskins: You are late to the party. Kathryn copied what I wrote earlier as a sarcastic tongue in cheek gesture to me. You are right the 2nd amendment is making anybody do anything. Because it is a right. Even if you never use that right it is available to you when every you need it, as all the amendments of the bill or rights are.
  
  So if that is the case, why do gun people think they have to open carry in the public domain in order to preserve their right to bear arms?
  reply report
  60
  James Gaskinsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Well for one, that's their Constitutional right. I'll admit some guys do it out of foolish pride or because they're afraid they'd lose a fist fight. Some do it when they know they are too scared to pull it and use it if they had to. I don't live in this world blind to the stupidity that goes around me. But don't you see? That's the beauty of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and this great country. Our freedom to choose, our freedom to be whatever we want. On the other hand there are those who carry a firearm in public and believe it or not, many times a criminal will see that firearm and decided it's best not to do something stupid, simply because they saw the gun. It works as a deterrent more times than you know. Then there are the times when the gun doesn't phase some criminal who all of the sudden thinks they are bulletproof, and they go ahead and make their move. Unfortunately for the criminal, in many cases, statistics show that the criminal doesn't go home that night either due to a citizens arrest or bullet to stop them. It happens all the time. And you know what else? About 65% of the time, the armed citizen will shoot the criminal in the leg to simply stop them. The police do not care if its just simply some desperate purse snatcher. They shoot to kill. Usually, armed citizens have more heart. Chew on that for a while and get back to me.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower73:
  
  I was trying to cheer you up! I thought you would appreciate the new amendment proposal!
  
  NO????
  ~ what would YOU propose?
  Do Reveal!
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, thank you Kathryn, but I'm O.K. My only problem is I'm getting addicted to this. I have much better and more important things to do, instead of trying to convince people of this.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Where are most guns produced? How many are produced in the US?
  How could we actually reduce the amount of guns / weapons / arms in the US?
  You stated in one of your articles:
  … it (gun rights) is big business and they (the NRA) have BOUGHT congress.
  
  Maybe this is the real angle you mean to discuss!
  
  The power of the NRA and its influence on our ability to appropriately regulate guns.
  
  I think this is the real issue which very few can argue with clear conscience.
  Unless at some point in time we do need high powered mag weaponry like in the Matrix.
  
  reply report
84
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
If we do not know the future we will never come to a conclusion.
It is an unsolvable issue.
Unless you have a crystal ball depicting an endlessly peaceful future …
which I wish you did.
reply report
1. 66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Time was created by God so we could learn. In spirit there is no time. Jesus took the sin of believers to end the karmic debt before time no longer exists. All will believe, except maybe a few, in other life times.
  This is how I see it anyway.
  
  Otherwise like you said: If a person kills someone than that person will be killed in another life by the first one. Than the second will have to kill the first back. On and on forever. Jesus broke the karmic cycle by taking on the final one.
  reply report
84
Buildrepsposted 9 years ago
Of course there is a relation. It's so simple as 1+1=2. That it might not be proportional doesn't change the facts.

The US welcomes itself between countries like Mexico, Montenegro and Philippines. Switzerland has a high arm possession rates as well and higher gun deaths per capita. So, it's really simple math here, but maybe still too difficult for many...

reply report
1. 66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Charts like this are bogus. On this hub I read some own 10, 20, 35 guns.That means that 90 guns per 100 persons is more like 10% of the population, not 90%. The bad person will bring more than one gun a lot of the times.
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  lol ~ FACTS are ALWAYS Bogus and Sean HelmetHead of Fox Snooze is ALWAYS Truthful in "Republican PRETEND Land" ~
  
  So Doug. where's your Chart on your "BUFFALO Bullets" Theory?? ~
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No chart needed. It is all there in print. I would guess you didn't even look, read and weep because of how wrong you are! There are several sources saying the same thing.
  
  How about refuting that the founders and leaders in the way back didn't change the capitalization and punctuation several times. I would make another wager. You don't bring that up because you saw it and don't want to look like a fool.
  reply report
  84
  Buildrepsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Facts seem as much bogus to you, as this karmic Jesus stuff seems bogus to rational people. You think you don't need charts, facts, and math. But do you think your God would agree with this? Could he create a universe with only stories, or would he use math to do this job?
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What Doug C. was saying was in response to my request that someone have a crystal ball revealing a endlessly peaceful future.
  Well, Jesus reveals the possibility of an endlessly peaceful future, but do we pay attention to His Crystal ball?
  NOOoooOOO!!!!!!
  
  We do not need guns.
  
  But you know, just in case the crazies get ahold of them first… I mean who does God want to inherit the earth?
  
  The proud arrogant, ruthless gun and destruction-fascinated people or the peace loving ones defending their families and their nation with all humility and devotion?
  
  In case you do not know which is the correct answer: the later.
  reply report
2. 77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Of course there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. It is a no brainer that if we take away all the guns there will be no gun deaths (although taking the guns isn't possible, it's a "what if" scenario).
  
  But gun ownership does NOT correlate with homicides at all, and isn't that what counts? Not what tool is used, but how many people lose their lives to killers? For instance, the country you use as an example, Switzerland, does indeed have a very high gun ownership rate. It also has a lower homicide rate than Sweden, Spain, Northern Ireland, Netherlands, Italy, Israel, Greece, Germany, France, Finland, England and Wales, Cyprus, China, Canada, Belgium, Australia, etc. It seems a little disingenuous to say it has "higher gun deaths per capita" when it doesn't matter what tool was used - people are still dead and don't really care how it happened.
  reply report
  84
  Buildrepsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I have no idea where you took your data from, Wilderness. Of course do homicides correlate with guns. You just gave me a good laugh:) Thanks for that.
  
  Take away the guns and the homicide rates will drop. Not to zero, but less than now. You can still kill someone with a knife. But do you really think that these insane killings on campuses will continue without guns? A gun is initially meant to shoot people or animals.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Of course do homicides correlate with guns. You just gave me a good laugh:)"
  "Take away the guns and the homicide rates will drop."
  
  Can you show this to be true? From actual real world experience anywhere in the world? Or you just spouting opinion with nothing to support it?
  
  Because I did the research, (UN data from the Small Arms Survey) from all over the world and your statement is plainly false. Homicide rates do NOT fall with removal of guns. Just gun homicides. The raw data, along with graphs of it, are on a hub on my carousel. Where do you get the data and analysis for your claim?
  reply report
  84
  Buildrepsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Everyone’s statement is false up to a certain degree - mine, yours, and the plea of Kathryn about cars and belts, etc. You can even kill someone with ugly words.
  
  It's interesting enough to take a deeper dive into this issue and write a new Hub about it.
  
  Take care, and make sure your gun is on safety lock
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Good luck with the research and hub. I suspect you will be as shocked as I was...IF you take great care to eliminate data about gun homicides. Most of what is out there is just that, presumably because the writer has an agenda (remove guns) and doesn't want to produce conclusions that doesn't support that desired result.
  reply report
  84
  Buildrepsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I did some research to this issue, and even published a new Hub about this issue. There is no clear relation between the amount of guns and homicides, that's for sure.
  
  So, the whole debate seems to 'blurryfied' by wrong interpretations. Less guns won't result in less homicides. You were right all along, Wilderness. That's +1 for you!
  
  http://hubpages.com/politics/2nd-Amendm … -Necessary
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Everyone understands the Fundamental FACT that it's a Mathematical Certainty if we Reduce the number of GUNS in circulation that the number of Gun Homicides will indeed DROP as a direct result ~
  
  However, Republican Conservatives living exclusively in their own little REALITY have NEVER been partial to Science, nor the Factual Data which can be extracted from Scientific Knowledge ~
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And how about you? Why do you care about gun homicides? Because it makes a fake reason to go on and on about the evils of guns and the lie of taking guns will reduce the death toll?
  
  I'd have to say as well that taking guns from legal owners is not likely to produce much results. Only if you can get them from criminals and gangs, and that isn't quite so easy.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
MY crystal ball just told me ; Let's write another law .

We must remove or make it illegal to own the following objects to prevent the loss of innocent lives ,

Trains , cars , drugs legal and illegal , knives , baseball bats , cribs , semi-trucks , airliners , child car seats , tractors , tricycles , bicycles , ATV's , swimming pools , bathtubs , cruise ships , stairways , roller coasters , mall kiddie space ship rides , apple trees , sidewalks , garage doors , Slinky's *, Lego's , scalpels , fire trucks , subways .

Anyone care to add to the list ?
reply report
1. 84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Slinkys and Legos?
  
  How about everything poisonous including but not limited to all Medicines and Cleaning Products
  Also deaths occur from Trampoline accidents.
  Gymnastic Apparatus
  Falls out of ANY type of Tree can result in death,
  Also falls from roof tops of Houses and Tall Buildings
  onto Asphalt
  Abortions
  Surgeries, just in case!
  Drugs
  Alcohol
  Death can result from choking on Food, Fishbones
  Freeways and Roads
  Rollerblades, skateboards, surf boards snowboards, snow/water skis
  All sports, especially football
  and last but not least,
  Horses ...
  oh wait: didn't Robin Williams commit suicide with a Belt?
  
  we need to move to mars.
  reply report
2. 86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Which one of those is an object which is designed and whose sole purpose is to kill?
  
  For every object each of you listed, there are laws to 1) keep out of hands of those incompetent to have them, 2) govern their use so that they are safe and effective, and 3) ensure the design is safe.
  
  So try naming something that doesn't have laws governing their misuse or dangerous nature.
  reply report
  84
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  There are laws governing the misuse and dangerous nature of guns too.
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What Kathryn and just about every other illogical Conservative is trying to say is the FOLLOWING ~
  
  Why bother to fix the Brakes on your car when the Steering Column could Malfunction and cause you to CRASH? Or, Why bother to fix the Steering Column when a SPARK could Trigger a FIRE in the Gas Tank? Or, Why re-fill the Brake Fluid when Malfunctioning Electronics could cause a FIRE ~
  
  Quite the LOGIC isn't it? lol
  reply report
60
Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago
ALL the Gun NUtz must have conveniently IGNORED the incident which happened in Merced a few days ago ~ It's a PERFECT Example of why we NEED Much Tighter Gun Laws & Restrictions ~

A perpetrator attacked 5 individuals with a KNIFE, according to reports, 2 were wounded and 3 suffered Minor Injuries ~ To my knowledge, NONE of the 5 Died and the attacker was Killed at the scene by Law Enforcement ~ In this Case, this is what happens when a GUN is NOT used, a much more FAVORABLE Outcome ~

Above is a primary example of why EVERYONE in this Forum, whether he/she wishes to admit it or not, would much rather face any other apparatus than a GUN in a violent situation ~

What would have been the outcome if this attacker did indeed have access to a GUN and decided to use it instead of a Knife? I think we all know the answer, more than likely 1,2, or possibly even five or MORE Deaths ~
reply report
1. 77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And had the victims been armed? What would have been the outcome - no injuries except to the attacker?
  
  Odd how that is overlooked isn't it? But...take the guns anyway is always the answer. That will stop the the bombers and everyone else for sure.
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  lol ~ MORE Guns, always the INSANE conservative answer ~ And what if the victims were MINORS??
  
  The FACT of the matter is, your ODDS of survival are much more FAVORABLE when NOT facing a GUN which is Specifically Designed to Kill ~
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Fact is that a lot of minors, the weak and woman would have died if they didn't have a gun to do away with the bad guys/girls. Do I need to show you the articles?
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  And how much longer do you think they will live now? 20, 30, 50 years? And then what? I'll tell you what: All of the would be victims will be just as dead as anyone else! In the meantime, their survival through the use of firearms is used as a means to escalate fear, illustrate a false "solution", and sell more guns, with the end result being more killing, and more people dying before their time. The average person simply cannot see the big picture. It's not about personal safety. It's about evil men making money. It is no wonder that a majority vote in elections; always hoping that someone smarter; someone with more courage and motivation, will be able to fix all of their problems. Having a functional brain is a blessing and a curse. I often wish that I had been born stupid. I would be a much happier person.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  How long do you have? Sounds like it doesn't matter as long as we don't try to protect ourselves with a gun. Just let some evil puke come in and kill us without even trying to protect ourselves.
  
  Why don't you be that someone smarter; someone with more courage and motivation, and fix all of the problems. You claim to be all that and more. Is Mr. Hyde getting in the way.
  
  Having a functional brain is a blessing and a curse. I often wish that I had been born stupid. I would be a much happier person.
  
  I also wish I was born much more simpler. Perhaps a dog. Then I could get it whenever and wherever. You get what you need for this lifetime. Use it to the best.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, you might provide a couple of articles and some stats to support your assertion.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Just one search "minor saves lives by using gun" yielded me several articles.
  Read this Biscuits you keep claiming that a gun never saved any lives out side of military/law enforcement.
  Just change the search to "woman" or "elderly" etc, and I am sure you will find other accounts.
  
  http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html
  Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.
  
  About 65% of 35,000 gun deaths is from suicides. About 80% of those are from handguns.
  
  Me: Why should the 98% have to be disadvantaged because of 2%? And only a small part of that 2% resulted in a death. And if the bad guy/girl/it gets whacked. So be it, adult or minor.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Such claims are always the better for having supporting documentation/proof. Can you provide any that shows taking guns results in fewer homicides? Or is just talk yet again?
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  You are always asking for proof. It is apparent that even if you were communicating with Einstein himself, who may be using an online handle such as wildebeast, or brokebackhorsie, you would demand proof from that very authority. And then what? Are we to expect that once that authority delivered to you a "proof" from one of his subordinates, a lesser authority, you would be satisfied?
  
  But the demand for proof becomes even more absurd when we understand that not one individual on this thread can "prove" to anyone else who does not personally know them that they are human! Not one. It is not possible for any of you to prove to me that you are human. And so, common sense trumps "proof" on any given day of the week. Common sense tells us that the easier it is for someone to gain access to a gun , the easier it is to kill. Common senses also tells us that anger is only love denied; that save for a handful of sociopaths, the majority who engage in violent behavior have been led down that path due to emotional neglect, or the economic hardships of an oppressive, and hostile system. But apparently , what is common sense to me, is quite uncommon in the trailer parks, and the over 55 communities across the nation.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sure its easy. If you live near one of us we meet at a close McDonalds or such.
  Would that be enough proof?
  reply report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Did you know that contrary to what you think Einstein had to prove everyone of his hypotheses and theorems had to be vetted by his peers; everyone.
  
  Also, no one needs to prove their humanus in this, or any other forum; it is not at issue. If it were, there are many ways to prove I am a human.
  
  That said, claims of fact in forums, or anywhere else, must stand-up to proof of their veracity. Reason-based claims must stand-up to the test of logical thought.
  
  For example, can I make the factual claim that the Sun will come up in the East in the next 24-hour period? No I can't. Can I make the reasoned claim that the Sun will come up in the East in the next 24-hour period? Yes I can
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  It appears that you do not know what I think, since my comment was directed at an individual in this forum, not at Einsteins peers. Based on my experience with this particular individual, I hardly think that he would qualify. Concerning what is, or what is not an issue:
  
  I was responding to a comment that someone else had made. That is what people do in forums. It is not the first time that this individual has demanded proof. In fact, it is about the 1,999,999th time!
  
  Furthermore , it is not a matter of anyone "needing" to do anything. That is the strawman that you have brought to the party. My irrefutable point is that no one can prove that they are human. The relevance being, if I must break it down for you, that if a man cannot prove that he is human , then to suggest that anything else can be "proven" is laughable at best. This is why proof, such as scientific method, statistics, etc..can only go so far. These are all primitive methods of understanding , as they are based solely on the 5 common senses.
  
  The world has been deceived into thinking that empiricism is the answer to all, when in fact, it is the basis of a grand deception. What is referred to as common sense or instinct is far superior. There is no need of "proof" when the human has mastered the ability to "know" without understanding why. For instance, a man does not need to be able to explain the Law of Gravity, in order to understand that should he get too close to the precipice, he will fall, and surely perish. It is called common sense.
  
  Your final argument is only another strawman. If you review my post you will see that I was not referring to any "reasoned" proof that all participants here are human. I was referring to proof in the here and now, which I assumed anyone would have understood as pertaining to a factual proof of humanity. The assumption that all participants in these forums are necessarily human, is only born of human arrogance. Even if I should meet you in the flesh, it would prove nothing at all. You could still not be certain that I was human; just as you cannot be certain now.
  
  You have only offered further proof of how easily the human can misunderstand intent, and the meaning of words. This propensity for misunderstanding continues to be exploited by the NRA, the military, social engineers, and other entities.
  .
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Gonna keep on asking for it, too (or at least evidence if not outright proof). It's funny how the request is almost always ignored - it's as if the speaker feels that anything leaving their mouth (keyboard) is automatically granted "truth" status regardless of whether it is nor not.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Since you have responded with less than your usual amount of vitriol, I will give you some useful information that you can verify.To "prove" how impossible, and useless it is to provide "proof" in online forums: Go to your local zoo and find the monkeys, baboons etc.. If you can find a space in-between when they are not pleasuring themselves, please ask the following question: " So what do you guys think about the Second Amendment. Please let me know their response.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Can I take it (perhaps as a matter of faith) that you don't wish to discuss the result of taking guns vs lowering homicide rates? As all you want to talk about is what proof consists of, should I assume that you are one of those that think anything they say should be taken as "gospel" because of the origin?
  
  It sure sounds like it, in both cases...
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Five hours ago, I asked for the 2nd time, what constitutes legal gun ownership in the U.S. I have not received one answer. Is it because you people are focused on arguing with each other or nobody really knows the answer. If you think you know, please go to my post from 5 hours back and read the questions. I can't repeat it at the risk of it being a duplicate post.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If it's the one I saw, I didn't answer because I don't know. I also think it varies widely from state to state and city to city.
  
  Incidentally, I'm in the same boat - I own a hunting rifle my father bought some 50 years ago. I haven't the faintest if I'm the "legal" owner or not.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If you actually own a weapon given by, father family , friend or anyone , before even serial numbers were activated , or not ! You are "grandfathered ", Anymore than the farm land or the antique pick- up you were given by family members .
  
  Quite simply ---You break no laws in America until you commit a crime !
  report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peoplepower , What exactly makes gun ownership anything special out of owning ANYTHING in America ? A butter-knife ? A Steak-knife ? A car ? Who the hell do you ,or anyone think they are to question the ownership of anything by another American ? Political correctness comes quickly to mind ? , It's approaching a mental sickness in America where for whatever reason the stagnation of thought , of common sense , and of reasonable intelligence dictates the amount of though you put into free speech . It's really ,not only naïve , but downright moronic to suggest that owning a gun is actually unconstitutional .
  
  Gun owners are probably the most restricted Americans in this country by law .
  
  I suggest you and many others here , go back to junior high school , read the constitution , the bill of rights and maybe even the Problems of Democracy , once you have , if actually possible , read these articles . You might just have enough gumption to have acquired the basic intelligence to participate in a real forum . Otherwise . I suggest you go on about answering your own questions as you have constantly ,in the posts previously shown ..
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Of course, the spin doctors will use language as a subterfuge. They will differentiate between coldblooded murderer on the streets, and the same which occurs on the battlefield. I stand as a witness that there is no difference. Murder is murder. Collateral Damage is also murder.
  
  Guns have been used to primarily prosecute every war since the Revolutionary War. Of course there is a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates! What kind of fool am I to understand the obvious? How far can I tower above men until the Law of Gravity brings me crashing back into the Earth? You demand proof when you are literally swimming in the truth. The truth permeates the very air that you breath. Yet, you pretend that I must run and fetch the truth like a dog goes running after a bone! I am Ronnie wrenchBiscuit, a great writer of songs. My father was a famous mid-western farmer. I am not "He Who Fetches."
  
  No one can argue that the death rate in all wars, foreign and domestic, would have been far less without the use of guns, and all related ordinances. And so, bring us to the truth as it is perceived in BF Idaho, the Bible Belt, and the Land O' Cotton. Please, tell us about the rabbits, and why we shouldn't squeeze them too tightly, and after you're done, please explain why there is no correlation between the increased casualties on the battlefield, and the increased casualties in Chicago, Newark, and Detroit; why there is no correlation between the blood bath in Syria, and the white on white violence made manifest in the numerous mass shootings across the United States over the last 36 years.
  
  On one hand or the other, we see that a gun is the weapon of choice. If the gun is not so important to the Warmongers of today, then explain why every man on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is carrying a gun. If the gun is not so important for the killing here in the streets, then what else could have given George Zimmerman the confidence, and the courage to instigate an altercation with a teenager? What else could have compelled him to continue after the cops had already told him to stand down? Does anyone really believe that Zimmerman was so civic minded that he would have approached Trayvon Martin in the same manner had he been unarmed?
  
  The truth is all around us, and all around us is every proof that we need. The availability of guns equals more killing with guns. I do not need to waste my time with numbers when God has given me an extra dose of common sense! While the lovers of iniquity continue to play with their numbers, whine about the Second Amendment, and glorify the "Founding Phonies" who should have been buried long ago, men,women,and children will continue to die as a result of gun violence. Yes, as I have already mentioned: It is right, and it is proper, and it is natural that we should die; for without death, a mortal life would be meaningless. But there is nothing natural about children dying before their time, or a man, or a woman being shot down in the street; taken when their families needed them the most. It is the "deception of protection" that now fans the fires of the Second Amendment. But the availability of guns in the United States will always equal a greater rate of homicide. As I have already said, we are swimming in the truth. A man needs only to open his mouth and swallow it whole.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Well, let's see. You say all killing is murder; an obvious lie as "murder" carries a legal definition that differs considerably. Neither will you find but a handful of people that agree, so I'd have to say that your definition is meaningless.
  
  Then we see that God gave you more common sense; enough apparently to ignore facts in favor of opinion. Again, your claim is worthless as you appear to have even less than the average man in the street. At least theirs can change when presented with facts while you con't seem able to.
  
  Then we see that you again go on with a tall tale that "the availability of guns in the United States will always equal a greater rate of homicide" while ever bit of evidence in every country says the opposite. Your "common sense" isn't worth the effort to read it!
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  In your terse and derogatory response we can see the crux of the problem. The so-called legal definition of murder is as follows:" the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." The keyword in this definition is "unlawful", and that is the word you are standing on. Do you honestly think I would accept the very same definition that has been used to mitigate the extermination of over 100 million Indigenous people?
  
  It is the same definition that is used to justify each and every war. The idea being that since war is "lawful" , then it cannot possibly be murder. This would also apply to Collateral Damage as well. But I am not mesmerized by words, and I do not accept such barbaric definitions. I am not a barbarian. My God does not accept the murder of innocents, nor the murder of anyone for that matter.
  
  You speak of opinion vs facts. But to an ignorant man of the 18th century,many things that we take for granted today would have been considered only an opinion, or even pure fantasy. But even closer to home, the reality of the internet was inconceivable to a majority as recent as the early 1970's! You claim to know that my words are opinion and not fact. How so? Do you have a crystal ball? I suppose that common sense and humanity are both foreign, and abstract concepts to men who possess neither quality.
  report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So your pretend friend does not accept unlawful killing and neither do you. Good - neither do I nor hardly anyone else. We are agreed there although it has little to do with the soldier in combat.
  
  As far as your tirade concerning the opinion that removal of guns WILL produce a lower homicide rate - that is clearly opinion, while the opposite (that it does NOT lower homicide rates) is a proven fact. Just as a round earth is, and just like the people that fought that anti-common sense idea centuries ago you will fight the truth now simply because you don't like it and refuse to research and learn. I get that, I just don't accept it as a reasonable method of making decisions and conclusions. Common sense and logical reasoning based in partial data make a substitute for facts...when none are available. But when they are, the reasoning human being will use truth and fact instead when drawing conclusions instead of depending on desire for a specific answer.
  report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Of course, you have nowhere to go but around in circles. Did you ever see a man on fire? It is a common reflex for a person to run when they are engulfed in flames. This is why people are taught in Fire Safety classes to stop, drop, and roll; as quickly as possible. Why do people need to be taught what should be obvious? Because it may not be obvious to everyone, especially a child. Furthermore, physical pain and panic can often override a persons judgment, even when they know better. Stop, Drop, and Roll! This is the mantra that the meat-puppets need to adopt, instead of an outdated and obsolete Second Amendment.
  
  But I know that Mr. Bunker is already scratching his head, wondering what Fire Safety has to do with this topic. And so, I will speak very slowly, so that he and his friends can understand: Seeking the protection of a gun, in a world of violence, is a common reflex. But it creates a similar situation as the man on fire who is running. The more he runs, the more he feeds the fire. A man who participates in the gun culture, even if it is for his own protection, is helping to perpetuate the violence he is seeking to avoid! This is not an opinion, but an observable fact.
  
  The United States has existed for nearly 250 years. Yet, the killing continues, and I have just given you one of the primary reasons why. Why does violence still persist if guns can stop the violence? This is a question that the gun advocates cannot answer. They will digress into a bunch of gobblygook about how "guns don't kill, people do", or a heartwarming story about how grandma saved Mayberry from an invading horde of Visigoths.
  
  The men wearing the white whigs didn't tell you: Stop, Drop, and Roll !!! Of course, I should be getting paid for my insight into this matter. But that is not the world we live in. The American people will instead continue to fill the pockets of the rich and greedy arms merchants; the ones who are supplying both sides of the equation; the ones who keep telling us: "Run, Run as fast as you can!"
  report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  report
  86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Is that you, WrenchBiscuit? Nice ahhhh ... waist.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  But your "reasoned claim" is based on uncounted examples of experience that it has already happened; the "reasoning" is thus that it will happen again under the same circumstances.
  
  The same cannot be said for removal of guns; it has never been shown to result in a lower homicide rate. And thus that conclusion is not "reasoned" at all.
  reply report
  78
  cathylynn99posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  in australia, not only is the overall homicide lower since they banned some guns, the suicide rate is markedly lower.
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … -massacre/
  reply report
2. 84
  Buildrepsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Agree, this is a simple and irrefutable example.
  reply report
60
Disappearingheadposted 9 years ago
Some 15 to 20 years ago a man with a gun walked into a school in Dunblane Scotland and started shooting kids. Handguns were immediately outlawed and our politicians took the view that gun suppliers, manufacturers and lobbyists could just f*ck off. The result? No more mass shootings since.

Now obviously we don't have a gun culture in the UK and even the police are forbidden to carry guns unless they are part of a specialist fire arms unit. Obviously we appreciate that removing guns from American society is somewhat more complex. However there is a difference in attitude. American politicians will not tell the gun lobbies to f*ck off. They will not even consider any form of progessive gun control. Nobody sensible would suggest everyone immediately hands in their arms, but if the politicians wanted they could put an annual cap on gun licences, progressively reducing them over 15 years. They could progressively reduce high calibre or high rate of fire weapons by revoking manufacturing licences. They could enforce a strict quota on the volume of ammunition produced progressively reducing the quota year on year. There are lots of initiatives that could be taken by politicians and there are people much better informed than an ignorant limey like me to suggest what those initiatives should be. But the fundamental problem is that your politicians simply are not interested in even discussing the issues and they don't have the balls to stand up to the gun lobby.
reply report
1. 0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Here we go with one more uninformed rant ........
  What about enforcing the hundreds of gun laws on the books without proper prosecution of them ?
  America has simply grown soft on crime and hard on guns !
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: What does constitute legal possession of firearms in this country and what constitutes a legal sale or trade?
  reply report
2. 86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Disappearinghead: That's an excellent point. But the politicians in this country have been bought off by the gun lobbies. They are beholden to them for their funding to either get elected or re-elected. The NRA makes sure that the loop continues, because it is big money for everybody in the loop.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Then it's questionable whether you actually have a democracy. When power is inextricably linked to the ability to pay for it then that's not so far from medieval feudalism.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  We were supposed to be a republic.
  Where can a person live now and have the best
  for what they pay? That be the U.S.? Or Japan?
  A couple other countries? Not many places.
  reply report
3. 66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And who did you have to come crying to too save your blimey ass in two wars? It could happen again as soon as you drop out of the E.U. Better get armed.
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Doug: That's uncalled for. You better be careful or you are going to banned again.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh FFS.
  reply report
4. 81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Everybody knows that the Brits have a civility within their society and well established boundaries that the Americans lack.
  
  When in London almost 40 years ago, I happened upon a security guard at a bank where I was exchanging dollars for British Sterling. I notice that the guard had a baton rather than a side arm. I asked him 'where is your pistol?'
  
  He told me that even the bad guys played within a certain boundary of rules, shooting police was not even considered in the game of 'cops and robbers'. It was unconscionable and below the belt, a foul in the game, as he put it.
  
  It was most interesting and made a profound impression upon me.
  reply report
  71
  wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  Everyone also knows the following: "... It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century. The State of Georgia for example was first founded by James Edward Oglethorpe by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison, creating a "Debtor's Colony". This helps to explain why England has less crime than the United States. The gene pool was cleansed of many undesirables by sending them to America.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds as reasonable an explanation as any. Let's face it, the kind of indiscriminate shootings that we see here on a monthly basis are far from common most everywhere on earth else where people are conducting their daily business free of war and strife.
  reply report
  66
  Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Gun violence is way down. It is just exaggerated to get effect. Tell a lie enough times and some may believe it. Hitler and his thugs 1930's 40's
  
  The following is the last bit of a much longer article. Mrs. Clinton and the regiem have to prove that the product is defective or is only for criminal acts. Can't do that so they may as well leave it alone.
  
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … ntrol-con/
  
  The subsequent law clearly states that gun makers and sellers can be held liable for making a defective or unsafe product, or for criminal acts, but it does protect them from politically motivated lawsuits designed to crush an entire industry. Mrs. Clinton seeks to resurrect this tort lawyer paradise and drive hundreds of American companies into bankruptcy.
  
  To convince the public that America needs even more than the thousands of gun control laws now on the books, baseless claims and outright lies must be repeated to the point where “everyone knows” that gun crimes are up, there is an epidemic of gun violence, that gun makers are exempt from legal liability, and that “assault weapons” are machine guns. Tell a lie enough times, using the echo chamber of an activist media, and you can convince the public that restricting the law-abiding gun owner is only “common sense.”
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  awesome response to the leftist ignorance ++++
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

I want to thank Anti- gun people for addressing the second amendment issue . Since reading all the posts though , I have decided to trade in my antique relics and purchase a new AR-15, no sense waiting until it gets much harder to do so ! Anyone wish to try it out ?
reply report
1. 60
  Disappearingheadposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's a very nice gun, I'm sure it will make you feel like a powerful man.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  But we learn during adolescence that it takes more than brandishing of weapons for one to truly stand as 'a man'.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What it actually makes me feel like is MY business , kind of like free speech ! Know what I mean now ?
  reply report
2. 60
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  OBVIOUSLY, with the purchase of such a grotesque weapon, ahorseback is attempting to Compensate for his SHORTcomings Elsewhere ~
  reply report
  86
  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  To all gun owners: I asked this question to ahorseback yesterday, but he completely ignored it, because he was off on one of his rants about how liberals are ruining his world. At the risk of it being a duplicate and not accepted by HP, I'm going to embellish it a little bit.
  
  In another life, my Father and I used to go duck hunting and deer hunting. Therefore, I ended up with two Winchester Model 12, 12 ga. full choke shotguns and one Winchester Model 70 rifle. I have no documents to show proof of anything. Am I holding these weapons illegally?
  
  My questions are:what constitutes legal possession of firearms in these here United States?
  
  How is the sale documented?
  
  How is the legal exchange of firearms documented?
  
  How are online purchases documented?
  
  What is the process of buying a weapon at a gun show?
  
  What prevents me from buying a gun at a gun show and giving it to someone else?
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So says the man with a big keyboard !As to your rants , How old are you anyways , like nine ?
  reply report
3. 84
  Buildrepsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Be careful not to shoot in your own foot. Perhaps you should safety footwear...
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
THE GREATNESS OF THE LEFT ;" IF YOU REPEAT A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH , OUT OF PURE HABIT , IT BECOMES THE TRUTH" .

reply report
1. 86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That is not an argument, just a dodge.
  reply report
84
Buildrepsposted 9 years ago
To me wrenchBiscuit appears much more intelligent than all the 'righties' accumulated together. Bet they don't even understood what he wrote
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
The outdated human opinion , my next forum title !
reply report
1. 86
  My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, he thought that way ... until he didn't when he was President. Same with James Madison; being President brought him into the real world and he acted accordingly.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Taking guns away from law abiding Americans to lower the crime rate in your city might accomplish ONE thing ; It might show how naïve people are who try taking ANYTHING away from anyone else ! For instance - try taking cars away from city drivers ; or why not take tractors away from farmers , Hey , I know , why not try taking jet airplanes away from the air force , or tanks away from the army ..................starting to get my drift yet ?
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 … 11 Next

Necessary
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)

The outdated 2nd amendment.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

The outdated 2nd amendment.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies