2nd Amendment meaning

Jump to Last Post 51-92 of 92 discussions (407 posts)

82
SweetiePieposted 14 years ago
I have no desire to and I did include a good link to a book above. I do not have time for this. Good day.
reply report
1. 82
  SweetiePieposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have no desire to and I did include a good link to a book above. I do not have time for this. Good day. I share books that I read all the time.
  reply report
68
ledefensetechposted 14 years ago
Nice to see you're so willing to teach. It's no wonder you're as ill informed as you are.
reply report
67
TheMoneyGuyposted 14 years ago
Wow, this turned out to be very amusing, I follow the old modem never argue with fools they will take you down to there level and beat you with experience.

Respect comes from fear. I know we all try to put niceties on it and package and sell it as a feel good thing, but the real motivator is fear.

You pay your taxes out of fear; you follow the law out of fear. What do we Fear? Force, that is what we fear and respect. Not just any ole kind of force, nope deadly force. That is what it is all about, without the use of deadly force no one has a voice period.

Freedom is not about being able to say or type what you want, Freedom is what you say or type being heard and respected. That only comes with the threat of deadly force.

Unfortunately, you may think it different, but I know from experience in far away lands that aren't all so nice and regulated like where most of you come from whether the UK, Australia, or the US.

Arms are not about hunting, or self defense, those are just romanticized Ideals. Arms are about control and power, and who has them has control and power, and that is all there is.

TMG
reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
"The only people who "interpret" the 2nd Amendment that way are those who also think it is a "living" document. Of course there are many professors who think the 2nd only applies to state-sanctioned forces, that is the liberal stance.

Conservatives uphold it's original intent - which is a doctrine of negative rights. Do you understand that phrase? Or not?"

Madame X

Thank you for proving my point. Extremists can only comprehend the mythical extremes of ideology, not the reality of degrees in which society actualy exists. Yes, we all understand the concept of negative rights, the difference being that I didn't have to hear about it from Rush Limbaugh .

These rights are not absolute and of course are designed to be revised as times dictate. Surely you don't believe that the omnipotent founding fathers envisioned the production of nuclear weapons and crafted an ammendment to ensure the rights of slack-jawed yokels across the land to own them?
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't hear it from Limbaugh - so your silly insult has missed it's mark.
  
  I agree with TMG who said
  
  "Arms are not about hunting, or self defense, those are just romanticized Ideals. Arms are about control and power, and who has them has control and power, and that is all there is."
  
  That was the intent of the 2nd's authors.
  
  And no, it is obvious from your writing that "you all" do not understand the concept of negative rights. The Constitution outlines what the government can NOT do. It outlines it's limits. Therefore, ALL other actions are the rights of the people, by definition. That means that anyone may own nuclear weapons. It is their right.
  
  No one, however, who is sane, would want to, Which is another point that needs clarifying. Responsible gun owners - of which there are 80 million in the US - understand this, as well as TMG's point above. It's only those who lack the understanding of unalienable rights that label this concept as "extremist".
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So the word "militia" was just thrown in for giggles?
  
  So we actually do in your mind have a constitutional right to bear MIRVs. Of course, no sane person would want to as you say. I guess we have no reason to fear a madman with nuclear weapons. Wow! sign me up. N R A N R A
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Do you wish to deliberately misunderstand my point here?
  
  Yes, we have a Constitutional right to bear MIRVs. The founders did not spell out the concept of personal responsibility. But according to your logic, if they didn't spell it out, you don't have to have any - so you think the rest of us don't either.
  
  There will always be madmen, but denying rights to everyone else because madmen exist is completely contrary to a free republic.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, just to point out the absurdity of it. Of course by claiming a constitutional right to bear MIRVs, you did a much better job of it than I did. Think your concept through for a moment. Each of us, through the amazing powers of personal responsibility, gets to decide our own level of WMD ownership. Didn't your favorite president invade a country whose leader (allegedly) did just that?
  
  Has there ever been a person with dual MENSA / NRA membership?
  reply report
  48
  CabinGirlposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yawn !
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have thought it through, Ron, and I'm in good company. Right along side Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc. Ever hear of them? You absolutely refuse to look at the reality of this situation.
  
  Just because your property line extends up to the moon doesn't mean you're going to build a fence all the way up to it. In the same spirit, no sane person wants to own MIRVs or WMDs. It takes an entire team of people to design, build and operate these form of defense. But that does not mean you do not have the right to have them. You never will, but you still have the right. And that is the whole point.
  
  And as for your insulting abusiveness, please try and respond like an adult. I'm sure you can manage it if you really try.
  reply report
  60
  The Sharkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi X, this guys argument is a good example of your last hub, talk about blurring the lines. I love the way the libs continue on this illegal war cry. Wasn't it a Dem, Clinton, that took us to war in Kosovo? I don't seem to remember Kosovo ever attacking the US or being considerd a clear and present danger. Didn't Clinton also claim bad intel after sending cruise missiles into a pharmeceutical plant in Sudan? I don't seem to remember much complaining about killing civillians while at work.
  These people say they are "indepedenent" because they don't agree with everything one party does. It's not about being 100% on the same page, it's about being on the same page with core issues. It's why I told randy, who wants to keep his guns, to read the NRA magazine and see who supports his rights more. A little education goes a long way.
  The Shark---keep up the good fight X
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I do understand your viewpoint Shark and I do read some NRA reports and articles on gun control. I do not believe this is just a party problem. For instance, you are a conservative pushing for gun rights, yet you own no firearms. If you are so worried that our guns will be taken away or that we really need to bear arms, then why do you not get some before they become illegal? Have you ever fired a weapon, even at a firing range?
  
  I would take everyone's opinion's more to heart if they actually had experience handling guns. In fact, I am formerly asking all posters to this thread if they have, or have used, firearms in any manner.
  
  Let's see if people know what they are talking about from first hand experience.
  reply report
  60
  The Sharkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong agian Randy, I am not "pushing for gun rights", I am pushing for us to keep the rights we have. Stay on the fence, it's what causes candiates to be weak on the fence candidates like McCain, opening the door for extreme left liberals who refered to the people of PA as "clinging to their guns and religion." So your guns go first then what our religon, and maybe because you don't go to church so you would have nothing to say about American's right to go?
  So if Obama pushes for an income tax rate for farmers of 80%, I am supposed to be ok with that because I'm not a famer---we are all in this together. Until Americans figure that out we will continue to lose and give up liberty.
  
  The Shark----calling on X for some back up
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I guess we just differ in our opinions Shark. I, an independent, am well armed if I need to be, while you, a republican, are not. I do not pledge my support for any one set of principles and have likes and dislikes for both parties. I happen to think we need a third party which is my privilege. I do not seem to like others making this type of decision for me nor do I want to make theirs. Both parties suck.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Shark is right on this one. This is about all rights, not just the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is the only reason we have all the others. The guy with the gun is going to be able to stand his ground far better than the guy with just words, especially in a tyrant's view. Because a tyrant doesn't understand anything but force.
  reply report
2. 68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No they are not meant to be revised. The Bill of Rights is steeped in natural law, of which most of the Founders were proponents. Natural laws don't revise themselves, they just are. You can set up a society which does not adhere to natural laws, but sooner or later, they all fail.
  reply report
80
Tom Cornettposted 14 years ago
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
"I believe everyody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string."

-Scott Adams
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well there's an authoratative source.
  reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 14 years ago
I can't see how my having firearms affects anyone else. I am a hunter, another controversial subject I know, but I also am proud to be a potential member of a militia if this country needs one. "But you will be outgunned" many might say. I don't know, but the last two little piss ant countries we have attacked are still giving us grief even though they are severely outgunned.

I have never used my weapons for anything illegal nor to defend myself or family. Why is it bad for me to own guns?
reply report
1. 60
  The Sharkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Randy, nothing is bad about you owning a gun. These are nothing but liberals, like sweetie pie, that want your guns and your suv's, your cigars and anything else you have. I live in Kennedy country and these liberals think they know what's better for us than we do, and the sheeple follow in line. We're in a fight to hold onto our country. I hear from elitists when they get back from their European trips telling us how Europe is so much better. Well, then if it's so bad here, go there, I love the America we have, not the one they want to make. We fought a war to get away from Europe, and two to save their countries.
  If we allow the liberals to get away with their plan we will be like Europe, and we'll be at a 70% tax rate.
  The Shark
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Shark, but I know plenty of people who own guns that disagree with both liberal and conservative views on firearms. I guess I'm independent, not a bad thing to be as I don't totally agree with everything either side proposes. I just can't understand why others care if I have guns as long as I don't use them illegally.
  reply report
  60
  The Sharkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then you are naive if you don't understand the liberals don't want you to have your guns. These are the same geniuses in a local city that "outlawed" smoking in restaraunts. Did a lot for the new cigar bar restaraunt that had opened just a few months earlier. They spent a fortune to build a new buliding with it's own micro brewery as well. Pretty hard for a "cigar bar" to survive when you outlaw smoking. Every person that went there, went there to smoke!! So why did they care if these people had a cigar?? Same reason they care about you having your guns. Because they know better than you what's good for you. You continue to sit on the fence and soon they'll be coming for your guns. You need to choose which side of the line you stand on.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You may be right Shark, but as I said, I know many gun owners who are democrats and I also know republicans who don't have any. It would be nice if everything was so cut and dried just by being a member of either party.
  reply report
  60
  The Sharkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Correct, I am a Republican that does not own a gun, but I will defend your right to. What you are missing is the philosophies of the two parties. The Dem. party has an anti gun stand, both on a federal and state level. The republican party has taken a public stand on your right to own. So forget anecdotal results, and go with the facts. The NRA is invited to Republican conventions and they endorse Republican candidtates. So you can remain "independent" and will probably end up a gun free independent. Read the RNC magazine and see who appears in it, who represents your right to own and has your interests at heart. You can only remain neutral so long before the fight comes to your doorstep. I live in a liberal state with a Dem Gov. who wants a two year wait before you can buy a gun. They even want toy guns out lawed!
  To the north NH has no such foolish rules. Get educated if you are truly interested in keeping your guns, or you might be telling your grand children some day about the days in America when you could own a gun.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I respect your opinion Shark, but as you said, you don't own a gun. I wonder how many who endorse gun ownership do not have guns. I'm sorry, after the debacle of the last eight years I really can't make myself trust the republican party or the democratic party either. I may straddle the fence but I do so armed and ready.
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
I have thought it through, Ron, and I'm in good company. Right along side Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc. Ever hear of them?

X

Not only have I heard of them, I actually have read AND understood their writings; that's where we differ. More books, less talk radio.

I am for personal gun ownership. If a L E G A L L Y qualified adult chooses to protect his/her home with a firearm, fine. My problem is with the NRA nut jobs who think the government has no place in regulating weapons. NRA influence has led to the deaths of many innocent civilians as well as police officers by intimidating weak-minded rednecks into thinking that their shack in Montana is under assault from big brother.

Organizations like the NRA and their lackeys in the right wing media have convinced enough nit-wits in this country that they are entitled to own whatever weapon they choose, that an arms race has now started among the terrified simpletons. Mah naybur got him a shotgun, so ah'm a gonna saves my welfare checks up an' buy me a uzi.

More weapons on the street will not make society, or you personally, any safer. The founding fathers understood what the gun-toting ditto-heads clearly do not. That is why the second ammendment was written as it was-open to interpretation as circumstances dictate.
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good lateral move Ron, but let's stick to the point. The NRA hasn't "convinced" anybody of anything. It is in the original Constitution - that doctrine of negative rights we all keep referring to - that says that we can have whatever weapons we want. The Constitution LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT, not the people. It states what the government can not do, not what the people can not do - or even what the people may do. The people can do anything, can own anything, as long as it does not harm others. 80 million responsible gun owners have guns legally and never hurt anybody with them, except legally.
  
  This is the MAIN difference between the left and the right. The left wants to write more and more laws, as if we need "positive rights" - in other words, if it's not written into law, then you can't do it.
  
  No.
  
  That is not the original intent of the Constitution.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know about that, Madame X. Isn't there a small controversy right now about Dick Cheney and Bush possibly breaking the law concerning secret unconstituitional actions?
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Can you be more specific? In relation to this discussion?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You were speaking about the original content of the constitution and how liberals were attempting to write more and more laws. If officials use loopholes and unclear law to go around the constitution what other means, other than legislation, do we have to keep tyrants from circumventing the law? I realize this thread is about the 2nd amendment but interpretation of all laws seems to be a problem between the two parties. Without clear cut wording how is this problem solved?
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I agree with you. They are writing more and more laws that overlay on the constitution. And it's not just the left. The right is just as guilty. I don't know how to solve it (if I did I'd be queen of the world:) Maybe we should just throw the whole lot of them out and start over.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think many of us would happy to do just that. Cheers.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Great points! The whole purpose of the assault weapons and Cop killer bullets the NRA helps put on the street is to enable us to all live peacefully and happily. Your enlightened point of view is a wonderful beacon of truth; illuminating the path to a better world.
  
  In that vein the world is grateful to us for not only providing the means to slaughter our own citizens, but also benevolently exporting these fine products so that similarly minded individuals around the world can participate in the blood bath.
  
  Why should we worry about the victims of your philosophy? What's a few hundred thousand senseless deaths a year world wide, when we can self righteously proclaim allegience to what we misunderstand to be the "original intent" of the founding fathers?
  
  Thankfully the extreme right is whithering as a viable political force faster than the arms can be stashed in their Montana shacks. When the last Republican is stuffed, mounted, and displayed in the museum between Cro Magnon man and Neanderthal, the homo sapiens can begin to undue the damage caused by a sub-species that believes in the right to bear WMD's. They are the cast-offs of the very evolutionary process they tried to deny the teaching of through legislation.
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rant much? You don't make a distinction between citizens and criminals. That's the great weakness of your argument. I grew up around guns and was taught from a very early age to respect them. They weren't toys and we were taught how to be safe with them. Going by your logic, we'd have to ban people from owning matches because some slope-brows can't get off the couch long enough to put those things where kids can't reach them. In the case of kids shooting kids, you charge the parents for being negligent just as you would if through inattention they allowed their kid to have access to matches and the kid then killed someone while burning something.
  
  The key word here is responsible. As responsible adults we have the right, indeed the duty to protect and arm ourselves. An armed populace is one in which crimes are lower because the potential costs of crime are higher. If you mug someone or break into their house, they might be armed. That alone has a chilling effect on crime. Going your way, you'd exchange the victims of inattention or stupidity for the victims of crime. Are you wise enough to choose for someone. Were you given the power could you save one person from gun violence and then, due to your philosophy, be able to choose someone else to be the victim of a criminal and all that entails? In the end that's what your philosophy does.
  reply report
61
RockinBposted 14 years ago
From "A Journal of the Times", calling the citizens of Boston to arm themselves in response to British abuses of power, 1769:

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature and have been carried to so great lengths as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense, and as Mr. Blackstone observes it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

ASSAULT RIFLES, COLONIAL STYLE
George Mason's Fairfax County Militia Plan, 1775:

"And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, and to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, and always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls."

GIVE ME FLINTLOCKS OR GIVE ME DEATH
Patrick Henry, 1775:

"They tell us that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."

Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."

Samuel Adams:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15 year-old nephew:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Noah Webster, 1787:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

James Madison, "The influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, "46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29,1788:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that 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."
reply report
1. 67
  TheMoneyGuyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now those guys knew what they were talking about.
  
  TMG
  reply report
60
WTuckerposted 14 years ago
I think that personal defense from all threats including domestic and foreign as well as starvation was considered when the constitution was enacted. A government that controls the flow of food is a government that controls the people.

When it comes down to it there is no proof that crime will fall if the second amendment is ignored and guns are banned.

Hollywood has done some of the worst damage to the image of the gun in todays world.

just some of my opinions on the topic at this point.
reply report
61
RockinBposted 14 years ago
I own many guns, have fired many guns, and have spent my life around guns. I have never questioned the 2nd Amendment because the second amendment is unquestionable. The mere fact that we as a nation are debating it at all is disconcerting. A disarmed people are a people living on their knees with no hope of rising up against a tyrannical government with a standing army. Our founding fathers knew this because they lived it. We the people are the militia regardless if we are organized or not. These 2nd Amendment debates do not exist because we the people are questioning the right to bear arms. These debates exist because the unseen hand of a tyrannical force is guiding them. Our government is nearly perfect with the only imperfection being that it is filled with men whom throughout history have put there own needs in front of those they represent and plundered them. The Supreme Court is also not an enlightened body of super intelligent man. That body upheld slavery, confined innocent citizens in concentration camps and uphold an unconstitutional tax system. The Supreme Court was wrong on all three of these rulings. They are just men and it matters not that they have made rulings against the law and against the constitution, what matters is that we the people have allowed those rulings to stand at all. We know right from wrong. We would not allow our children to steal a toy from another child, but we continue to allow our elected officials to take the fruits of our labor from us and give them to our neighbor who has not earned them. This is the act of plunder, which is the complete opposite of Justice. Politicians paying for votes with taxes from the labor of citizens who may be against this very act is plunder. Politicians creating Laws and Regulations to benefit private entities is plunder. Politicians who may want to confiscate guns would be trying to guarantee the right to plunder will not be infringed. So even if the Supreme Court abolishes the second amendment, or the federal government try’s to confiscate our guns, it really doesn’t matter at all. What matters is if we the people would allow it to stand. I say come and take them.
reply report
80
earnestshubposted 14 years ago
Ron, your gonna get flack for this burst of truth!
I would like to say that it makes perfect sense to me. What you see is the future. I do not have to live so much in the past. Australia has reasonably strong gun-laws and it is getting better with every arrest.
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but what you call flack, I call quicksand. As these guys make their pathetic attempts to justify their position, they just sink deeper into their own suffocating muck. I don't usually get so worked up about an issue, but when I think about all of the lives that have been snuffed out by the practical results of their ideology,its a little tough to be polite.
  reply report
  80
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I do understand. It was an observation based on the previous flow of this conversation. You have the same view as many of my friends in America. It is hard for outsiders like myself living in Australia to relate to the way the gun lobby bias the reading towards their belief.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wow Ron, remind me never to visit Flagstaff. It sounds very dangerous there. Cop killing bullets, rednecks buying uzis, people living in shacks stockpiling assault rifles and talking with a southern accent. I'm sorry but I think these statements are a little over the top or are you talking about somewhere else. I agree about the NRA but are you talking about criminals or law abiding citizens?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, we don't have much of that stuff here in Flag. We do however get newspapers. Read one sometime then get back to me.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your assumption that I do not read newspapers makes me more suspect of your unrealistic views. Besides, I don't hear much about chefs being murdered around here. Perhaps it's your cupcakes.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now you've gone too far. Disagree with my opinion that human lives are more important than ideological slavery all you want, but DO NOT EVER say bad things 'bout my cupcakes.
  reply report
61
RockinBposted 14 years ago
Madame X you will have my vote for.
We have so much tolerance in this world as long as the rights of the one individual or group decrying the new control, regulation or abolishment of another individual or groups rights are not infringed upon. Honest and good people are the only ones that words on paper will affect in complying with an unjust law. Why would one attempt to disarm the innocent unless total dependence, control and domination are the main goals? We should all bow down and suckle the teat of our masters?
“How dare the masses not agree with me, knower of all things right and just”- I forget who said that, it wasn’t me though. Maybe it was Than Shwe, Omar al-Bashir, Stalin, Hitler, King George, Mussolini, Kim Jong-il, King Abdullah, Genghis Kahn, King Fahd, Prince of Sultan, Suharto, or some other great leader in history that was enlightened. It could never happen here in the U.S.A. because we are free or because we are armed?
The motive for genocide is to deal with a perceived threat to a government or its policies, to destroy those one hates or envies, to pursue the ideological transformation of a society, to purify a society, or to achieve economic or material gain. This is Man’s tendencies.
reply report
68
ledefensetechposted 14 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533790,00.html

More evidence that guns are used to stop crimes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532 … c/us/crime

Not to mention that sometimes you can't rely on the police to protect you.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is true ledefensetech (damn that's hard to abbreviate) in my rural area there are signs on people's lawns saying "Don't worry about the dog. Beware of the owner!
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Abbreviate LDT, that seems to be easiest. Yeah that's pretty much it. If my home were invaded or I were mugged, I'd feel a twinge as I shot them, but other than recoil that's all I'd feel. It's a person's actions which tell you what kind of a person they are. Just because I have a gun, that doesn't make me a raving lunatic. Hosing down a streetcorner because I'm in a fight with a rival gang or killing an entire family because they saw my face in a burglary or robbery, that's what makes you a raving lunatic.
  
  I'll live on my own terms, not ones the liberals will allow me, if it's all the same to them. That's the only right we really possess in the end.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I too live on my own terms, LDT. I just don't blame one particular party though. Both liberals and conservatives represent things I refuse to support. Supporting the lesser of two evils seems to be a cop out, especially in light of the last eight years of lies and corruption.
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's the main reason why I've found myself supporting an anarchist point of view. There really doesn't seem to be another way out of the whole Right/Left dichotomy. Both try to get into power and once they do they claim a "mandate" and do as they will. No accountability whatsoever.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know that I'd go as far as anarchy but I can understand your sentiment. The left/right bounces us back and forth like a ping pong ball. The only way to see clearly is get above the fray, and all their froth. I look at a person's actions and their reasons behind them. If they stand for genuine freedom, and respect others' rights, then I'm with them. Otherwise they are the enemy.
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You really have a sort of epiphany when you realize that there is little difference between the Right and Left. Both attempt to control the economic life of this country and do so to the benefit of their supporters and the detriment of everyone else. Not exactly cricket. That doesn't even square with the idea that government is supposed to help the largest number of people, not to mention the belief that governments are instituted among men to secure our inalienable rights. Here's a little exercise: Can you name me one instance where government can provide a service at less cost than the private sector?
  reply report
2. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You can actually never rely on the police to protect you in your home-that's not their job. Police respond to attacks, they don't prevent them.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse me? How about letting me keep my own gun then? Without any licensing. Or do you suggest I should just give all my stuff and life to the first robber?
  
  Ron, you can do better than this
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I do want you to keep your gun. Not any weapon of your choosing, but one that is legal. I want you to store and handle it responsibly and use it on that first robber. There are rules though. Like it or not, you have chosen to live as part of a society and the rest of us do have some say as to how you arm yourself.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I started to answer you, but then I looked at your other posts here, and don't feel like talking to you anymore. Bye.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for your input Misha. Come back and visit when you feel better.
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who decides what is legal? Government? When they have a vested interest in disarming the population because then they can pursue their policies without the fear of general insurrection? No thanks. There are better ways to solve the pitfalls of gun ownership. How do you square your supposed belief that people are supposed to protect themselves with "legal" guns and the fact that police respond, not prevent, attacks?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The government is kept at bay by fear of armed citizens? Absolute paranoia.
  
  There is nothing that needs to be squared by the question you asked, you simply need to read and understand posts before pouncing on them. I'm not sure what you mean by supposed belief, are you inferring something?
  
  People have a right to protect themselves. This right is not without limits to means, you cannot for instance rig lethal booby-traps to kill home invaders. The government, with the consent of the governed through elections, defines and enforces these limits.
  
  The second amendment begins with a phrase that defines its purpose, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". Gun rights extremists conveniently disregard or redefine this language to suit their own goals. The weakest of their arguments involves the false belief that the militias of that time were made up of common citizens, thus meaning everyone should own a gun in case he was called up. They further misrepresent the words by claiming the purpose was to keep our own government in check through the fear of its armed citizenry. The language and the supporting documents explaining its foundation clearly support the belief that the founding fathers sought to protect their government, not overthrow it. The fall back position, after losing the first two arguments, is that the founding fathers believed in their omnipotence and thus had created a document that was self defined,(in a manner agreeable to the extremists of course) and without need for interpretation. If this was the case, why bother with the creation of a supreme court? You could simply follow the easy-to-read instructions and there would be no need for judges. (sort of a paint by numbers system for running a Republic)
  
  More important than any academic argument about the second amendment:
  
  American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
  
  That is a statement that needs to be squared with your viewpoint that we as a society have no rights to limit your arsenal.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting statistics. Providing it is correct, do you know what percentage of those guns were legal?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and which countries?
  reply report
  60
  The Sharkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Teen Car Accidents. Teenage Car Crashes.
  Car Crashes are the leading cause of death for teens in the United States and accidents while driving cause 36% of all deaths in this age group according to the Centers for Disease Control
  
  Teenage Driver Facts:
  Deaths. Each Year over 5,000 teens ages 16 to 20 Die due to Fatal injuries caused Car accidents. About 400,000 drivers age 16 to 20 will be seriously injured.
  
  Maybe we should take cars away as well.
  
  In a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court "majority" ruled that individuals have the right to own firearms, meaning that it was unconstitutional for local officials to prohibit the vast majority of Washington, D.C., residents from owning handguns.
  
  So unless you think the rest of us have less rights than the residents of DC I'm going with the Supreme court on this one.
  
  The Shark---sticking with the Supreme Court
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This worn out argument is neither new nor relevant.
  
  This supreme court decision does not preclude the right of government to set limits on gun ownership. Repeating your quote as nauseum does not make it any mor interesting.
  reply report
  60
  The Sharkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Correct---the limitation comes to convicted crimminals, that is the point of the Supreme Court saying "vast majority."
  So yes I'll repeat the Supreme Court's finding a thousand times because in the end it is the only answer that mattters.
  
  The Shark
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know, and it doesn't matter much to me nor to the families of the victims. Dead is dead. In this country, there is a loophole in the gun laws for weapons purchased at a show. An AK47 can be "legally" obtained at a show by a front man and be in the hands of a criminal within minutes. It is absolute insanity.
  reply report
  0
  dennisemattposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I heard a while ago that people are working on changing this thing with gun shows, and the person working the stand or whatever its called, will be required to do the background check.
  We will see...
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The government massages statistics all the time. You know the old saying: Lies, damn lies and statistics.
  
  Ron, the only thing that keeps government honest is an armed populace. I'm sorry you don't believe that, but it's true and not just paranoia. I'd ask for sources to back up your paranoia clam, but of course there aren't any.
  
  If anything there is an ignorance about guns in this country and that is what is killing people. You don't go into the issue of gun storage or how these kids got into guns and if they were purchased from a gun shop or on the street. But then again, what do facts really matter. You, in your infinite wisdom, have pronounced judgment and the rest of us should just fall into line. Sorry but I don't trust your judgment that much.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So in your view, the governments of France, the UK., and New Zealand, et al are kept honest by their citizens who are armed with what? Baguettes, yorkshire puddings and kiwi fruit?
  
  The facts do of course matter, that is why I presented them. Your own posts regarding the government boogyman who is coming after your weapons are sufficient evidence of the paranoia I speak of.
  
  You don't have to trust my judgement, but I encourage you to work on your own. The notion that weapons proliferation leads to a better, more secure society is ludicrous.
  reply report
  80
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You can add Australia to the list too Ron. We could probably throw insults at em!
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Or kangaroo poo. That should keep big brother at bay.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who told you they are honest? Spit in his eye!
  reply report
  80
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We all have pretty reasonable governance Misha, but honest? Not all of em for sure.
  What we have in common is no unregistered guns, and very few guns outside Military and police.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sure Earnest, I know that we diverge on this one This was just too good of a shot to let it pass
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just wondering Earnest, how do you know there are no unregistered guns?
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
LDT, I'm not going to copy your post, but this is basically in response to it.

You may have missed my earlier posts, but I do support a person's right to own a firearm for personal defense. I just can't buy into the point of view that there should be absolutely no controls on what weapons can be owned. There are actually lunatics among us that believe in a constitutional right to own any weapons they can get their hands on in whatever mass quantities they choose. (unfortunately, some of them have access to a computer.)

It isn't only guns in the hands of criminals that are a problem. Guns owned by "responsible citizens" enable the owner to carry out a deadly attack in a crime of passion scenario that would not happen using the matches from your ridiculous comparison. (don't tell me that responsible gun owners never face emotional crises where the presence of a gun turns a conflict into a fatality).

I don't claim to be wise enough to choose who should own firearms by myself-never have. But those of us who fight to improve our society, as opposed to those who declare themselves anarchist, arm themselves to the teeth, and huddle in fear in the shack, do collectively have that ability.
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say everyone should own any weapon they want to, but that the 2nd, and the Constitution, does not limit the rights of the people, only the government. If you want to vilify me as a right-wing extremist, or apply other sh*tty terms to try and get around a point that you don't like, that is your prerogative.
  
  That's right, you're not. So stop shouting that you are.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your earlier posts contradict this one.
  
  Please show some integrity in your replies. Posting only the first part of my statement and failing to post the relevant remainder of demonstrates your lack of ability in arguing an opinion.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nice try Ron, but you still haven't addressed the point. The 2nd, and the Constitution, does not limit the rights of the people, only the government.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How did a parrot get a hubpages account?
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So, from this I can assume that you do not support our constitution? How come? It actually gives people like you the right to spew the head-in-the-sand arguments you have been promoting.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The constitution is one of the great documents of history, brilliantly conceived and implemented through thoughtful compromise.
  
  Your interpretation of this fine document leaves much to be desired. If it means what you think it does, it may as well be used as toilet paper.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This whole thread is about the meaning of the 2nd amendment - not "Ron Montgomery's regulations" added to it.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And cupcakes. Don't forget the cupcakes.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Got any chocolate ones?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course. Every flavor imagineable.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wow Ron, you sure know how to handle a icing gun.
  report
63
Mishaposted 14 years ago
Now it looks much nicer here
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You're a good cookie Misha!
  reply report
2. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We beat our swords into plowshares.
  reply report
79
ProCWposted 14 years ago
I think the right to bare arms is very important. Otherwise, we'd all be walking around with farmer-tans.
reply report
61
fishmoxposted 14 years ago
I don't own a gun.
Yet.
One day I will.
Right now, I protect myself and my family by being street-wise.
I do my own profiling.
And stick to it.
I may be wrong, I'm only human, but I'd rather be wrong and alive, and my family safe, than hesitant, and dead.
My hands and my feet are my weapons, and I've used them many times, and know I can rely on them.
But I'm aging, and men are becoming less men than they were in my time, when weapons are resorted to only by cowards, and so I keep within reach in my car a good box cutter, which I WILL use if needed, and a nunchako, which I know how to wield.

But there is still no better alternative to a gun at my age.
A glock .45, or a Vietnam type .45, wonderful, emphasis on wonder, guns, would stop any charging bull.

Did you know that the .45 was invented for the Filipino muslims of the late 19th century ?

Garands could not stop them.
Enfields went right through them but they kept charging, until General Arthur Mc'Arthur requested for a gun with real stopping power.
They came up with the .45.

I don't know.
Could be urban legend.
But tell me of any pistol with more stopping power than a .45, be it a Glock or something else.

Viva gun ownership !!!
Viva RESPONSIBLE gun ownership !!!
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So glad I am not so scared to live in my own country that I feel the need to shoot people. Box cutter, nunchaku, and a 45 all within easy reach. You wouldn't be a christian by any chance?
  
  What a awesome country you live in. Where is it exactly?
  reply report
  61
  fishmoxposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, Mr. Mark Knowles, if I am right about this, I live in YOUR country, the United States of America, and if I am wrong, well, then I live in a country of YOUR ascendants, or descendants, whatever the case may be.
  
  I was born, raised, and bred in the Philippines, where, by God's grace, I did not feel the need to own a gun, a feeling which I got living in the United States of America, considering how every fanatic Muslim hates anything American and I worry about maybe one day we're having services (and yes, I am a Christian, by God's grace) and these bunch of Allahuakhbar should come bargin in and start shooting everybody else.
  
  But guess what, so far, it's been Americans shooting Americans.
  
  I feel the need to own a gun because I see the proliferation of unlicensed firearms in the hands of people who are not supposed to have them, people who just got out prison, are candidates for prison, or maybe escapees from prison.
  
  I feel the need to own a gun because I see how some people drive over here and how the innocent act of overtaking somebody else's vehicle could spark road rage and the guy could most likely be armed with a Saturday night special, or some gun he got somewhere illegally.
  
  I feel the need to own a gun because I hear how some people live in some neighborhoods where they board up their doors BESIDES having four locks on them.
  
  I feel the need to own a gun because Charles Bronson and your Hollywood sent that message and keeps sending that message to me and to those back home that this is how it is to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
  
  I do not feel the NEED to shoot people, I feel the NEED to defend myself, my home, and my family IF I have to, so please, if you're going to take on me, at least be intellectually HONEST with what I'm really saying.....and, oh, by the way, where in my post did I say anything about a .45 being within my easy reach ?
  reply report
  61
  fishmoxposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Bumpin this for Mr. Knowles.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not worth responding to. Your "intellectual honesty," is somewhat in doubt. You feel the NEED to defend yourself by SHOOTING people. OK - I get it. Good for you.
  
  Sorry you live in such a place.
  
  Just as an aside though - who gets to decide if you are RESPONSIBLE or not?
  reply report
  61
  fishmoxposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, my, I missed this.
  Not worth responding to, but the intellectual atheist responded anyway.
  Thank you for your kindness.
  
  I feel the NEED to own a gun, because the bad guys have guns, and from what I see in this country, hell, they don't have it on them to scare people.
  
  Now, hand to hand, I can take on them, even if they'll probably beat me black and blue, but how do you defend yourself against flying lead shot at you from 10 feet away ?
  Ha !
  Not even your dialectical wishy washy can figure that out.
  Run ?
  Hell.
  
  That bullet goes more than a thousand feet per minute it'll hit you before you even lift your foot to turn.
  
  The problem with you all against guns is you got a lot to say to bash people who would like to keep their guns, but you don't have solid alternatives to not keeping guns.
  
  So I ask you now, Mr. Knowles, how are you going to defend yourself or better still, can you tell me how I should defend myself, and my wife, if some idiot high on crack, goes on a road rage and comes after me with a freaking loaded gun ?
  
  Tell me how, and I honestly will think about it.
  
  Are you going to say that this does not happen, or is not bound to happen statistically and empirically ?
  
  I know I can meet them head-on with my trusty box cutter if all they have are knives, but guns ?
  reply report
  60
  Elynjoposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't worry, if our neighbors cannot defend themselves from armed criminals, we are going to try our best to defend them with our guns.
  reply report
75
Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago
We have a right to fresh air and water ,and unpolluted food.

A Right to Have a Gun?

Nah , geeze if someone wants ,what I want ,bad enough to shoot me for it...

Whats my life worth protecting for?

more of the same

same sh** ,different day?
reply report
80
earnestshubposted 14 years ago
Ron, your argument is sound in my view. In Australia we have private gun ownership laws which are strict and enforced. It is not a perfect system, but it does work well.
The idea of protecting yourself from a modern elected Government that was voted in to power like the one in America is laughable.

Here if anyone saw a gun in the city apart from on our armed police they would be terrified.
All licensed guns must be locked in a gun closet and other safety rules apply.
We still have criminals getting killed by each other with guns, but private citizens are not shooting each other in our streets as much as they did before gun control, and the clean up rate for gun crimes is very high.
reply report
1. 61
  RockinBposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Federalist No 15:
  The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist. Though this principle does not run through all the powers delegated to the Union, yet it pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest depends. Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States has an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. The consequence of this is, that though in theory their resolutions concerning those objects are laws, constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations which the States observe or disregard at their option.
  end quote Federalist No 15.
  
  Two States last week (Tennessee & Montana) have been denied their rights under the 10th Ammendment of the Constitution by the federal government.
  
  This is the reason for the 2nd Ammendment. All Americans constitute the militia regardless they are not yet organized.
  
  Federalist No 28:
  It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.
  
  The great extent of the country is a further security. We have already experienced its utility against the attacks of a foreign power. And it would have precisely the same effect against the enterprises of ambitious rulers in the national councils. If the federal army should be able to quell the resistance of one State, the distant States would have it in their power to make head with fresh forces. The advantages obtained in one place must be abandoned to subdue the opposition in others; and the moment the part which had been reduced to submission was left to itself, its efforts would be renewed, and its resistance revive.
  End quote Federalist No 28
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We solved this issue in 1865. Perhaps you missed it.
  reply report
  61
  RockinBposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ron Montgomery
  
  [/quote wrote:
  We solved this issue in 1865. Perhaps you missed it.
  Sorry I must have been mistaken on the topic. I thought one had to understand the writings in the Federalist Papers and anti-Federalist papers as the basis for the Constitution and the framers intent. Maybe your interpretation is the one we should all use.
  reply report
75
Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago
Can the second ammendment be changed?
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it can be nullified with another amendment. This is very unlikely, given the grip that the NRA has on its fearful membership. The NRA is a powerful political lobby that stands against any reasonable limits to gun ownership.
  
  Guns and gun violence will always be a factor in American society. Unfortunately the pervasive fear and ignorance that brought this situation about will take generations to solve.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yep ,but if its 'for the people' and the people agreed etc
  
  Like a referendum? Vote on it, Democracy.
  
  I relise its not a simple thing , but I dont see how a large group of people can change their global footprint and not change gun control is all.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It just doesn't work that way here. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. It is a great system, but the downside is that when we get it wrong, as we have so far done with gun proliferation, it is a slow process to get it right.
  
  The problem isn't with the amendment itself, but rather with it's interpretation and subsequent affect on laws. It is a blight on our country, just as slavery and the genocide we committed against our indiginous people were, but we will eventually get it right.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I see, Im off to google republic now, thanks for clarifying that for me. You sure the U.S is not a demoracy?, maybe its a mix?....see heres the thing
  I have heard past speeches ( good ones too) and more recent years where Leaders have said
  
  "We live in the greatest democratic country in the world".
  
  On a side note , I think the whole worlds gone crazy!
  
  Common sense has died a slow death and no one even knew about the funeral.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The structure of our government is a Republic. It is democratic in terms of general political philosophy.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Boy did I get lost then ( in History) thankyou
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No prob
  reply report
2. 60
  The Sharkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why??? Sure change the 2nd amendment to please you, then change the 1st one to please others.
  Stop trying to make America into Europe,we are Americans and we fought to be able to do things the way we have for 233 years.
  
  I'm with the RockinB dude on this one.
  
  The Shark
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 14 years ago
If America didn't have a private militia during the Revolutionary war I think things may have turned out differently. It's just hard to fathom people who don't care to defend themselves against those intending them harm. What would you guys do if gun wielding criminals tried to enter your home? They do not care about laws. Really, what would you guys do, call the cops?
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Shoot them, then call the cops.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So Ron, what kind of firearms should we be limited to. At what point is a firearm okay and where does it cross the line into excess firepower.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You start at the most extreme and work your way down. Is it ok with you if I defend my home with nuclear weapons. No, of course not (please tell me you agree with that!) We'll jump down a few notches and say tanks should not be legally owned by citizens. We're going to eventualy end up in the neighborhood of fully automatic rifles and armor piercing bullets. I say no to them, but can't answer for you, you may find these acceptable. If you lived alone in a wilderness, surrounded by hostile people intent on killing you, these weapons would be fine. You don't so they're not. You live in a complex society where some people may pose a threat, but the vast majority do not. The law-abiding, consensually governed people you share your neighborhood with have the right to set reasonable limits on your home defense systems. The lawless, home-invading thugs who also share your neighborhood have a right, and a duty, to be suitable targets for your approved weapons.
  
  Happy Hunting
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't really understand your point Ron, but I'm sure trying to. At some point reality has to enter the picture. The technology required for the ordinary citizen to build a nuclear weapon would be so expensive it would prevent the manufacture of these devices. Then you have to have a delivery system which wouldn't destroy the maker as well as the supposed enemy. And besides, would the crooks not build a nuclear device just because it was against the law?
  
  No, I don't want the ordinary citizen possessing nuclear weapons, but I don't think laws can control this. Hell, I stayed scared for eight years when George Bush had control of them.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The point is very simple. ( I included the nuclear weapons point because an earlier poster actually believed in a constitutional right to own them, so from now on I won't assume) We have a right to protect ourselves with firearms. That right is not without limits. Society, through the mechanism of government decides what those limits are.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But what if the government is corrupt and wishes total control? Do you have complete faith in your government to act in your best interests, or do you have misgivings?
  reply report
75
Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago
Sure New Zealand cops dont wear guns ,but they do use a swat team (when warranted)...but theyve skipped that section for now anyway, and hell bent on importing tazers now!!!! wt?...grrr

I want whoever makes guns to quit makin them, that would be my desire.
reply report
78
Mighty Momposted 14 years ago
Here's how the actual language reads: "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."

I interpret this to basically mean that America's security requires armed forces (well regulated militia as they were called back in the day). And because of that Americans (the People) should be able to freely keep and use their firearms.
The main difference between then and now, however, is that the People then WERE the Army, whereas now our "well regulated militia" is the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force and National Guard -- not to mention the agents of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.
The language is quite specific to the application of securing a free STATE. It does not say anything about any individual person having the inherent right to keep or bear arms for any personal use.

I am not a legal scholar (as you can probably tell). But that's how I read this original language.

I don't care to engage in any arguments with people who might think I want to deprive them (or anyone) of their firearms. We actually own several and if push came to shove, I'd pull out the Glock first and call the cops second....
reply report
1. 63
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Guess that's why I love you MM. Can't resist strong women really
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
RG, I always have misgivings when it comes to the government, I just don't see how stockpiling weapons will help (see earlier posts). More importantly, I am unwilling to accept the death toll associated with our current arrangement.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I would agree with more control on personally owned firearms Ron if you can guarantee that no one would break the laws. Can you do that?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course not, but that doesn't matter. It is an issue for the public at large and they will decide.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Gee Ron, we are the public aren't we?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My point exactly.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So, where would you, as a member of the public, draw the line on personal firearms?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Probably on the stock. The lock and barrel would be hard to draw on.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Cop out?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Tired of the exchange. Tired of having to repeat myself to you.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I wasn't aware you were specific as to what types of firearms should be allowed or where the line was drawn.
  reply report
61
RockinBposted 14 years ago
Ron M, in reference to your rude 1865 comment;

History is full of the feats of men elected by civil societies. Most of these advanced glorious empires have crumbled because they abandoned completely or attempted to merge the rule of Law for the rule of Man. Or perhaps Ron's rules? Our constitution has limits to specifically prevent this from happening but men still institute the very thing that men always institute with power. They abuse it with reckless abandon with unjust laws and regulations. The Civil War solved the issue of upholding the rule of law over the rule of men. The civil war did nothing to usurp States powers by addressing the 10th Amendment. It in fact solidified the powers of the States under the 10th Amendment by proclaiming a new Amendment abolishing slavery forever in 1865, well within the Constitutional boundaries of the federal government. You may have read about this 13th amendment in one of your fortune cookies.

I would like to repeal the 1st, 3rd,4th,12th,14th, 16th, and 27th Amendment. Can we just pick the ones we don’t like? Can we outlaw bakeries since they might cause obesity?
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are new, so I'll let you off with a warning this time. DO NOT SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT BAKED GOODS!
  
  Confederate cupcakes
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I've got to give you credit Ron, you may not have the right attitude about gun control but you have good taste in cupcakes.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeeeeeeeeee Haaaaw
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was kidding of course, but many think all southerners love the stars and bars. Just like many think Arizona has good college football teams.
  reply report
80
earnestshubposted 14 years ago
Ron is indeed the cup cake king! His cupcakes magically arrive at certain points in a thread..
reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
No one thinks that, not even Arizonans
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  For a guy with an empty helmet you are pretty savvy about football. Go Dawgs!!
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe not so much when it comes to college. I root for the golden dome and touchdown Jesus.
  reply report
61
RockinBposted 14 years ago
I really like those cup cakes but South Carolina was forced to remove that pattern from there capitol building and hide it in the back out of sight near the tool shed. Those cup cakes may be illegal. Make em smaller and hide them.

So I give up what's left of the 1st for cup cakes and I keep the 2nd. Fair trade since the 1st is almost gone anyway. HR 1913 hate crime / speech will take a big chunk of whats left of your cup cake. Congress says "Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive"

If one pondered that statement concerning "promoting tranquility" right from the preamble of our glorius Constitution, The federal government would have to ban itself for being illegal.

They ignore "promoting tranquility" with class warfare every election cycle by promising to tax this group or take something from that group or make a new law benefiting one entity over another entity. They split the battle lines right down the middle and keep us arguing over inconsequential issues with each other while they sit in Washington sipping brandy and continue to plunder all of us. No domestic tranquility there.
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Is yelling "MOVIE!!" in a crowded firehouse protected under the first?
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
So yes I'll repeat the Supreme Court's finding a thousand times because in the end it is the only answer that mattters.

The Shark

Until the next supreme court decision, them you'll have to find something else to rant about. Do you have any original thoughts to share or just more parroting.
reply report
1. 60
  The Sharkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not a rant Ron, just a quote. It's always a rant when it's something that liberals don't agree with. But when it's a liberal issue---well that is a higher cause--very intellectual.
  
  Apparently a quote you don't like.
  I find libs love to quote the Supreme court on issues they hold dear---such as abortion, but when it comes to issues they don't like---well you say: "until the next supreme court decesion".
  Are you expecting them to reverse their decesion? If that is so then maybe the pro-lifers have hope after all.
  
  To quote your hub: You write "historical fiction"---I get it.
  
  I try not to let the facts get in the way.
  
  I have plenty of thoughts visit my hub.
  The Shark
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_club_shooting

How many of these slaughters do we have to endure before the gun nuts admit that maybe the answer isn't more firepower?

Go ahead and parrot the NRA talking points in response:

The guns di'nt kill'em the shooter did.

He coulda done da same thing wif a knife.

More laws woodena saved dem people.

From my cold dead hands.

If folks would just go to aerobics packin' heat dis wooden happ'n.

Our forefathers wanted us to kill folks, it's in the constitooshun.

Sickening; more blood on the NRA's hands.
reply report
1. 0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lolololo. Diction says it aaaallll.
  reply report
  80
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How do Americans get to the point where they think it is good to have all it's civilians armed with any dangerous weapon? We have crime, with all the usual shootings in Australia too. It is a major problem, but if you had the chance to get rid of the firearms wherever they are not needed, eg cities, surely with a well disciplined and financed police force and good intelligence it would be far safer than it is now with guns all over. The American people can make that happen, why haven't they?
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How can you be sure that a "well financed police force" and "good intelligence" won't lead you straight to a police state? It's happened before. Do you really think that once the cops stop fearing the public they won't abuse their power? Before you say yes, consider the indignities that we are subjected to today because of terrorists and drug dealers. How would you keep the police from becoming tyrants in that case?
  reply report
2. 68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If there had been armed people in that place, I doubt the shooter would have gotten very far. Did you bother to check and find out how that guy got the gun. Last time I checked, most criminals don't use guns you buy in a shop, they get guns that can't be traced.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All has been thoroughly refuted before; gunshow loopholes etc.
  
  Armed people in the gym would only cause the shooter to be more heavily armed and wearing armor - all available thanks to the NRA.
  
  The bottom line is very plain; more guns and more excuses will not save lives. Sleep well NRA supporters, only 4 people died this time, fewer than the usual gun nut bloodbath.
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please. Your way would leave us totally defenseless. Could it be that this nutjob targeted a gym because he knew it was a soft target? Yes. Look at Virginia Tech. Even ignoring the stupidity of the administration, when people took measures to defend themselves, their chance of survival skyrocketed.
  
  Police can, at best, respond to problems, not prevent them. Your way would not only leave us defenseless against government thugs, it would leave us defenseless against your garden variety thug as well.
  
  This guy was a nutjob, a bomb waiting to go off. Would it have made you feel better if he would have gone somewhere else, like a subway and started cutting on people with a knife?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  You have a very high tolerance for pain (other people's of course). How many people have to die in the next massacre before you decide that firearms proliferation should be curtailed? 100? 200?
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The number doesn't matter. You can't legislate safety and common sense, those are learned traits. You either develop them or you do not. Could you save some people from murder by gun if you took them away? Sure. Yet what are the other consequences of taking guns away? That's the part gun control groups don't answer except with vague promises of increased police presence. Yet look at what happens when you allow authorities an explicit monopoly on force:
  
  http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index. … pic=126143
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … Bhatt.html
  
  Those incidents are just as crazy as when some idiot doesn't properly train his kids around guns and/or leaves them around for anyone to find. Cops can abuse their power enough with an implicit monopoly on force, make it explicit and you've just like a fuse for revolution. It may not happen in your lifetime or mine, but it will happen. The only person who can assure you of your safety is you.
  reply report
60
tksenseiposted 14 years ago
So, are you gonna address each of those points?
reply report
60
tksenseiposted 14 years ago
You left something out
reply report
55
ihatedrivingposted 14 years ago
I hope those are toy guns at least.
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ironically, toys that look this realistic are illegal.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Dude, have a brownie:
  
  These are the best brownies ever.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Shameless self promotion!!!
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  See? You feel better already. And if you add the "special" ingredient..........
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's what I was looking for.
  reply report
63
Mishaposted 14 years ago
Ron, you are getting rude. You have your own thread for personal attacks.
reply report
63
Mishaposted 14 years ago
Hey Mark, you got 100!
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Woo hoo!
  
  Does that get rid of the gun nuts as well?
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Rather makes you a target
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A packet mix?
  
  Jeez. Must be the lack of guns......
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Stoners are as a rule, lazy.
  
  No offense Misha
  reply report
75
Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago
Every time there is a shooting on the news , this is what our household sounds like.

(Me) Damn guns again, when is America gonna learn!

(Hubby) Its our God-given right to carry arms!!, why should the criminals carry them and we .....yea see it goes round in a circle.

I think boys just dont like their toys taken off them ,and before anyone gets annoyed yes I understand the need for protection.

A, Does anyone think outside the square , two people =two guns =one dead person , one person alive

B, One gun=one dead , one alive

Same result, less guns
reply report
1. 57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  C. No guns = no dead guy. Different result. How about that?
  
  Tricky concept, but I know you Christians are big fans of shooting people. Seriously.......................
  
  Did the dinosaurs get shot?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Misha????
  
  Personal attack police officer?????
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We ate the dinosaurs just like humans are eating the whales...do people still sail on the sea?? himmm interesting notion isnt it Mark...but alas boys lets try n stay on topic , must be close to 'lion feeding time'
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's good eatin'
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But one day someone will say ,,, we were not around when those giants frolicked in the mist
  
  so TK quit slaughtering them ,please!
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't kill them personally, I just ate them. There's plenty more.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But TK theres not plenty ,thats the point..sigh
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sure there is, and their numbers are increasing.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh you mean the mathematics of no guns = no dead people?
  
  Be my guest..................
  
  Not sure what you mean about the sea. People sail on the sea, therefore we ate the dinosaurs? I thought they drowned in the flood?
  
  Or was it they got on the Ark? I can never remember...........
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ridiculously false.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Really? You think it would be easiest to kill me with?:
  
  a. a stick
  
  b. a gun
  
  c. a rope
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh you want easy ?
  
  you win a gun or a bomb ,yea forget the gun ,just blow everyone up
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - so you also favor bombs?
  
  Excellent. Of course you do..............
  
  I believe the muslimists do as well.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Misha?
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe it would be possible to avoid bringing religious bigotry into this discussion...
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All would work but I would have no reason that I know of to resort to any of them. Don't use personal pronouns in such discussions, it's inappropriate.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So, would it be easier for a hypothetical asshole to kill me with?:
  
  a. a stick
  
  b. a gun
  
  c. a rope
  
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "me" is the operative pronoun to which I referred, and again any would work most conveniently depending on the circumstances.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So, you do not think it is easier for someone to kill "you" with a gun than a rope or a stick?
  
  I wonder why they do not issue the US military with sticks?
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, were you talking about in combat?
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - just in general.
  
  You think there are anti stick groups? Or the National Stick Association? You know, the NSA?
  
  Sheesh, some hypothetical assholes really take the biscuit.......
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  because of this effective training video
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Misha!!! personal attack on persons of hypothetical persuassion!!!
  reply report
2. 60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, like those Constitutional rights toys...
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well its also my right not to have a gun pointed at me by anyone! or kids to not find them and accidently fire them or teenagers bein gangsta's , all of those things are in the consitution too!
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No it's not.
  reply report
63
Mishaposted 14 years ago
Yeah Ron?

Don't see any
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, they say love is blind. Have you guys picked a date yet?
  reply report
75
Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago
Whats the finger pointing "you christians" sposed to mean????

Ive never shot anyone in my life , have you ...geeze have another drink
reply report
1. 60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe that's what he meant, like having a shot of whiskey.
  reply report
2. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You have correctly identified the dreaded personal attack. You did a better job than the self-appointed attack policeman (unarmed I hope) did.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Was all those muffins ,
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but I have to fess up. Secret Ingredient..............
  
  Whale Blubber.
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol you have a quick mind , but alas its vegetable shortenin ( I checked) lol...
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  High functioning brains are the direct result of high cholesterol diets.
  
  mmmmmmmmmm...Whale blubber
  reply report
  75
  Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago
"You can't legislate safety and common sense,"

LDT

We can and do. Seat belts are the immediate example, there are countless others.

We consider driving a motor vehicle to be dangerous enough to warrant controls on the activity, including identifying drivers and owners. Similar reasonable controls on gun ownership are opposed by the (this one's for Misha) highly-intelligent and worthy-of-our-undying-respect members of the NRA. Tracking ownership of ALL guns and ammo would save lives immediately, but be ideologically impure so.. no dice.
reply report
1. 60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good example. Lots of people choose not to wear seatbelts. The folks most likely to 'obey' that law are the ones who were doing so before it was made a law.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And the millions who do so (with a correlative number of lives saved) because of the threat of a ticket.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. The ones who do, do so because they are convinced it's a good idea.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct. Avoiding tickets is a good idea. It's amazing how many "clear thinking" individualists suddenly saw the light (sorry Mark) when seat belt use became mandatory.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Would you agree that many lives have been saved by the decline in cigarrette smoking in recent years?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Too early to tell of course, since cigarettes kill so slowly. It is logical to assume that will be the case.
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't wear a seatbelt because of some stupid law. I wear a seatbelt because I know I'm not immortal and I have a basic understanding of physics. Namely that the faster something goes the more energy will be imparted if it were to impact a slower moving or immobile object. I also know that I'm not immortal and if I wish to continue to breathe then I must do things that will increase my chances of doing so. I'm sorry everyone doesn't think that way, but I cannot force anyone to act with prudence.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's right, you can't. Society, through government can. Same holds true for guns.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And again only those disposed to behaving in the desired manner will do so anyway.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And those not so disposed will be deposited in the correct holding facility before they can amass their arsenal. Are all licensed drivers "disposed" to getting a license before driving? Is this an evolutionary turn I am unaware of?
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All evidence to the contrary?
  
  The drivers who follow the rules of the road are disposed to in the first place, and the many, many, many, many, many who do not are not.
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  For a time, perhaps. But it's the nature of government to become oppressive and corrupt. We now have bankers using the power of government to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. Do you really think that loading up society with laws is going to make us any safer, or will it lead to us all becoming criminals?
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You guys should check out "risk compensation," and the relative increase in pedestrian deaths as car drivers feel more "safe" by wearing seat belts. Interesting stuff,,,,,,,,
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I read something about that once. It was an article about the unintended consequences of passing certain laws. Unfortunately most of the evidence is negative in nature as we can't recreate it in a lab and as for using a natural lab, we'll we can never know what would happen on a road not taken. Take mandatory insurance laws for example, not only have those laws increased premiums for everyone, guaranteed insurance makes people more careless as the cost for carelessness is spread across the entire population, instead of being paid by the individual.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think the mandatory insurance is a little different - being as it is simply an income generator. But - generally - people who feel "safer" wearing a seat belt drive more aggressively and faster - resulting in more pedestrian deaths.
  
  They also tend to drive closer to cyclists they see wearing a helmet, as they perceive them to be "safer," resulting in more cyclist's deaths.
  
  Unintended consequences of not fully understanding anything because you are the government Inc and therefore unaccountable.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, let's see the 'proof' of that bit of mind reading.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Tell me about the National Stick Association (NSA) first.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'll take that as you admitting that you can't support the statement in question.
  report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I will take that as you just trolling again.
  report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Try to focus.
  report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Can't.......brownies.
  report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well at least that's understandable.
  report
  61
  nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  pot, meet kettle.
  report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not from an economic perspective it isn't. I once knew a lady who would purposely park her car close to other people and hit their car when opening her door. When people asked her about it she said it didn't matter, they had insurance. You can be sure that for anyone who says such a thing, there are many more who think it. Or more to the point don't think about it but you can see it through their actions. I can assure you if insurance were not mandatory, you'd see less and less texting accidents. Do you really think an insurance company would continue to keep a driver they knew texted while they drove? Unless they were compelled to by law?
  
  You are, of course, correct about government being unaccountable. From their perspective, they're infallible, but we know better don't we.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes we do.
  
  I will find some research about the texting because I know nothing about that. The other thing - "risk compensation," is well documented. Although - yes - lives have been saved by wearing seat belts, the opposite is true also - people drive more carelessly when they feel "safe," causing more pedestrian deaths.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Waiting for the proof of this.
  report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Texting was just an example. Since people don't have to worry much about paying for repairs, they will drive more carelessly than they would if they were held responsible for those costs.
  
  I used texting because it's been in the news lately and illustrated the point I was attempting to make.
  report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And driving SUV's
  reply report
2. 68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah sure, how many people still ride around without their seat belts on? It's a waste of time and effort by the cops. Plus it's an easy way for bureaucrats to separate people from their money without raising taxes. That would be one of those unseen consequences of your plans. You don't consider those and the impact that will have on people.
  
  As for people being killed by guns, I'm all for prosecuting negligent owners. Just like negligence of any other type. If you don't secure your guns and some kid picks it up and kills someone, then you should be prosecuted as an accessory. If we executed people for killing others with a gun instead of making excuses for them, we'd see gun violence decrease. If we decriminalized drugs, the illegal drug trade would collapse and you'd see gangs go bust over night. Gun violence is a symptom of a problem, not the cause.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your assertions are easily contradicted by the readily available facts. Seat belt laws have saved lives. Comprehensive gun and ammo licensing would do the same.
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So contradict them. Merely saying that they're easily contradicted doesn't make it so. It makes me wonder where you really get your information. Is it raw data? Or do you have it fed to you like baby formula?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You can use your own 15 seconds to pull up the information.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Cop out.
  reply report
  68
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can find information for and against. I was curious as to where you got your information from. I've found that where you get information can be as important or more important than the information itself. Propaganda flourishes in an environment of information overload.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please, by all means, post information from a reputable source that claims traffic fatality rates from vehicle collisions were lower before seatbelt laws were inacted. I will pay you 1 gajillion dollars.
  reply report
  60
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, wearing seatbelts has saved lives.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2

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)

2nd Amendment meaning

Ron Montgomery

[/quote wrote:

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

2nd Amendment meaning

Ron Montgomery [/quote wrote:

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies

Ron Montgomery

[/quote wrote: