BS: The Second Amendment

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:34 AM

Watch what you say, LH... The NRA has "agents" in Canada who are there to keep you northern commies in line... You keep talkin' about reasonable gun control for the US and you just may get a knock on the door...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:46 AM

>>Since all reasonable debate about gun ownership and rights and responsibilities ended with the second post I really have to know one thing. Does Amos really own a Bugatti?<<

Thank you for introducing "reason" to this debate. You must have a "reason" for slagging everyone but Taconicus. Would you care to share it. Or are just going to snipe without backing it up?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:02 AM

BTW, ya' all... In this morning's Washington Post there is an article about a high school kid who has been expelled for shooting spitwads thru a straw at fellow students...

Hmmmmm???

Meanwhile the grown ups have no problem with ex-con psycho murderers stocking up on fully automatic AK-47s with no background checks??? BTW, what do you hunt with a fully automatic AK-47???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:23 AM

Congressmen?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 09:16 AM

Palin's scope is on an AK?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 10:17 AM

Yesterday at 5:30 PM I made a plea for stuff related to the stated topic. Now it's all just back to repetitious stream of consciousness ramblings about anything to do with guns......or Bugattis...

I give up...if you bother to read my posts, you know what I think anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 12:58 PM

Hey Bob
I am looking for a .357 can ya pick one up fer me at the gun show? Only wheel gun I have is my .44 mag that I use for deer hunting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 01:15 PM

and Bobster, I am revoking your membership in the Red Neck of old Virginie club ... sorry buddie but you don't like George Bush or guns ... so you lost your membership ... sorry to say ... but I did list ya on the pastry of the month club instead I did ... tee hee   

Love ya buddie ... couldn't resist

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 01:39 PM

Bobert - "what do you hunt with a fully automatic AK-47???"




Any damn thing that gets in yer way...

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: DougR
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:12 PM

Yes, Bobert, it has been reported that Obama taught constitutional law, and I suppose he did. His effectiveness as a teacher could be called into question, though, when one considers that he did not recognize that the health care law he and his fellow Democrats passed was unconstitutional. Shouldn't a teacher of constitutional law recognize that?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:19 PM

Bill D... sorry about that, bud. My bad.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:21 PM

I think that probably every president you've ever had in office has done things that were unconstitutional and passed legislation that was unconstitutional, Doug. On the one hand, it's a matter of legal interpretation, and on the other hand, most people wouldn't know the difference anyway. They just believe whatever other people tell them about it, and if no one does tell them anything, then they don't even think about it.

If Obama was a Republican, you wouldn't be complaining about him, you'd be defending him. ;-) (whether or not he did things that were unconstitutional)

I'll give you an example. The Constitution specifies that only Congress can declare war. So how do your presidents get around that? Simple! They have wars, but they don't bother declaring them! Thus they circumvent the necessary authorization by Congress. ;-D That's unconstitutional, but no one seems to care except for the odd maverick like Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) or Ron Paul (Republican).

You see, Doug, lying is as commonplace as breathing in the halls of power, no matter which of your parties gets elected, and unconstitutional behaviour is as common as breaking wind.

It just gets mentioned whenever one party wishes to incite part of the public against the other party over some issue....and why? So they can get votes from them, that's why.

You are being manipulated by demagogues who couldn't care less whether something is unconstitutional or not. They have more important considerations in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 06:28 PM

Good point LH.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Crowhugger
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:28 PM

Interesting thread. I popped in to find out what the 2nd amendment is about. I knew it was about my southern neighbour's constitution but I never can keep track of which content goes with which number.


>>"What I think is that there should probably be different rules for rural gun owners, depending on their occupations, etc...than for urban gun owners..." ~ LH

Totally un-Constitutional. <<

Perhaps more unenforceable than unconstitutional? To compare to vehicles again, there are lower speed limits in populated areas, lower again in school zones, as compared to divided highways. Note that this isn't about no guns, it's about restricting them. Farmers can buy purple gas yet taxi drivers and soccer moms can't. There is lots of precedent for different rules based on geography or occupation--e.g. different laws in different states, tax law, zoning by-laws. I s'pose there are those who'd say such things are also unconstitutional. In any case I sure wouldn't want to be the one responsible for defining 'urban' and 'rural' for gun law or any other purposes.

Canada faces challenges similar to NYS in that most of the guns used in crime are smuggled in, not legally purchased & registered, and only a small portion are stolen from homes. A notable exception to these situations is spousal violence where the (registered, often) gun in the home is a weapon of choice. I doubt that better conviction rates for this one kind of violence is what gun law framers were aiming at (pun intended). The widespread fact of smuggled guns supports the notion that it's a law makers' and law enforcement issue, as already pointed out by others.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:18 PM

ONE Right-wing activist district judge has declared the health care bill "unconstitutional." Methinks this will be appealed until Hell freezes over, so it's a bit early to claim that Obama flew in the face of what he knows about the Constitution.

What, exactly, is there about the health care bill that makes it unconstitutional? Where EXACTLY is it written?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:28 PM

Mr Simple Englishman coming up. I find it both amusing and tragic that a whole modern nation can cling to some paragraph dreamed up by a bunch of frock-coated men hundreds of years ago, the same blokes who thought nothing of stealing other people's lands and who regarded a black man as a third of a human being. It's all very un-grown up, and it makes me think that a very large proportion of 300 million people think they're John Wayne. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:44 PM

"What, exactly, is there about the health care bill that makes it unconstitutional? Where EXACTLY is it written?"

Assuming that you really want to know, not just resent the bill's impending doom, here goes.

The ObamaCare bill forces people who do not want health insurance, for any reason, to purchase it anyway. This cannot be justified by the Commerce Clause in the 14th Ammendment because that only regulates commerce. Choosing not to buy simething is not commerce, it is inaction, which your government has no power to regulate.

If ObamaCare were constitutional, the federal government would also have the power to force you to buy a car that you did not want, and the provisions of ObamaCare that tell you the type of insurance you had to buy would also allow the fed to tell you what type of car you would be buying. Completel un-Constitutional.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:44 PM

from this site

" This mandate is far beyond what the federal government can do under the Constitution, argue those challenging the law in court, who further say if the individual mandate is allowed to stand, there will be no limits on federal power."


This basically the 'slippery slope" argument. "If we allow this, there's no telling what they'll do next!"

The conservatives in general try to frame it as an "you can't tell people what to do" issue.

also from that site: "Defenders of the provision say the health care system and health insurance system clearly fall under the category of "commerce," something the federal government has the right to regulate."

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:49 PM

pdq-- scholars differ

Reagan's Solicitor General thinks it IS constitutional

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Slag
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 09:13 PM

Sorry, I skipped down when about half-way thru the rehash. Just wanted to point out that our Constitution does not "give" rights to anybody. The US Constitution recognizes the God given rights which are possessed by we who inhabit the land.

And speaking of living upon the land, someone above, mentioned our right to drive the roads. You may not know how very right you are for the rules of the road are maritime laws and if you are "driving" you come under those rules. If you "operate" a vehicle for the purpose of "traveling" you don't. This is a bit of a hot debate right now but please note that our Constitution allows our government control only where interstate "commerce" is involoved.

You want to change the Constitutiion? Fine, the U.S. Constitution provides the proceedure to change it via the amendment process. Be my guest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 09:37 PM

The health care bill no more "forces" people to buy health insurance than the mortgage tax credit "forces" people to buy a house.
Don't fall for the spin.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 09:51 PM

This is about the 2nd amendment...

A few years back Rap stated that folks on the left need to buy guns... After watching what is going on in Egypt I'd say it's about time... I mean, like Egypt the US is in a 30 year old the stranglehold of the right wing and I( can see US right where Egypt is in a few years... Mubarak is Egypt's Boss Hog and right now it's the Mitch McConnells and Sarah Palins...

My advice??? Get a gun, learn how to shoot it and load up on ammo...

I hate it that our world is coming to this but where ever we look, including the US, the right wing is in control...

Like I said, I hate it... But given that the right is so well armed I think if it came down to Egypt here in the US the left would be slaughtered...

Now, interestingly enough, back to gun control???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 11:26 PM

In my view the right to own a gun is simply that, a right. Just as I have the right to have an opinion, say stupid things, and act foolishly now and then. A right is only a part of the covenant that is implied by the constitution.

I believe that altho' not stated, implicit with the right is the responsibility to use it with care and respect. To respect the laws of the area in which you live, to store it safely, and to know how to use it. Along the lines of even tho' you have the right of free speech you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

The guns I own are interesting old weapons. I have a side by side double 12 made in Batavia, NY. A Stevens Model 12, a 45-70 Trapdoor Springfield model 1884, a .36 Caliber Schutzen target rifle, and a .45 caliber black powder derringer replica. As you can see none are assault weapons with the exception of the Philadelphia derringer which is a replica of the Lincoln assassination weapon.

I don't care for the NRA but Wayne La Pierre is in favor of background checks and shooter safety programs before a gun leaves a store. So do I. That doesn't mean I support Wayne La Pierre. Each state has their set of gun ownership laws which is totally brainless. There should be one law that covers universally. Virginia's idiotic gun laws would have to go. New York's laws are plenty strict and would make a good model. The problem is state sovereignty and state's rights. An example of the messiness of the constitution.

The second amendment to me is inviolate, just as are the other parts of the bill of rights. However the founders, (Jefferson,Adams, Madison, Hamilton,...) gave the people the power to amend the rest of the constitution. I would tell Little Hawk that this is were the constitution is a living document. And the Bill of Rights is a foundation that must remain as originally written.

There is one area of constitutional debate that I think needs to be explored for more importantly than the rights of gun ownership. (That debate is too tied to emotion and personal opinion as this forum shows.) I think that understanding the original meaning of the language and punctuation used in the constitution is the central issue of all constitutional debate. The mutability of the language causes misunderstanding of meanings. (try and define and explain the enumeration clause, this has caused endless debate in constitutional law classes for years) The statement reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
( Which rights? Enumerated how?)

The Commerce Clause seems to be the measure for the Health Care Act.
The government hasn't the right to force anybody to buy anything.

An even bigger constitutional issue; I'd like to see a copy of Obama's birth certificate. To my knowledge it has never been seen and it should fall under the freedom of information act. If he won the election fair and square that's fine. But if he can be recalled there is hell to pay. It is arguable that if he wasn't native born and there by not an eligible candidate then any bill he signs may be unconstitutional and have to be passed again or voided. The same with any decision he made, like nominating Joe Biden as his running mate, right on down the line...

Gun ownership and second amendment rights are a small part of a bigger debate.

And Jack, I don't know Taconicus, he just started the ball, and I don't snipe.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 11:45 PM

See it here, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 11:54 PM

Hey, Taconicus, why don't you read your own post?   It's truly amazing the number of Mudcatters who don't even read what they themselves post.

As Rap points out--and I have mentioned in other threads more than once-- , the main reason the militia were important in the 18th and early 19th century --(in addition to the fear that Britain would take back the North American colonies which had become the US)-- was the fear of a standing army. Your own post spells it out:   :Blackstone's Commentaries 1803:   "Whenever standing armies are kept up and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is under any color or pretext whatsoever prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction".

So it's obvious, to anybody who to can read--perhaps that doesn't include NRA zealots--that the writer of the Commentaries, like many at the time, was deeply concerned about the threat posed by a standing army.

The question then becomes:   why are you still paranoid about a standing army?    Most thinking beings have passed that stage.   Perhaps you haven't.

To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:10 AM

Even if you are in fact still paranoid about a standing army-- (by the way, I advocate a return to the draft, for entirely different reasons)-, nobody is trying to disarm you or the other would-be folk heroes of the US.   You can keep all the rifles you want as far as I'm concerned. But according to your own strict constructionist attitude, you should clearly not have any semi-automatic pistols, since I do believe they did not have them in 1789--or 1802.

And obviously sales of AK-47's should cease forthwith--since it's a bit unlikely that they had them in 1789 or 1802.    Unless of course you think it's a God-given right for gun dealers to supply Mexican drug gangs.   But if it is, please cite the clause of the Constitution which establishes this.

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:12 AM

"obvious to anybody who can read"

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:18 AM

Anyone who uses the made up word "obamacare" obviously has no respect for the Constitution or any other written document. They see words as hammers to be used against others who do not share their views rather than a means of communication. We has the good manners to call the sh

pdq, apparently being one of those people, only gives that one side of a very complex argument. The government says that everyone is required to buy health care, one way or another. They are simply requiring that the commerce be conducted in a certain way. Actually the auto industry is a very apt comparison. The government does not tell you whether or not to buy a car but it does tell you what features the car must have have and it does tell you that you must maintain it. It does that not just for society's good but for your own.

Little Hawk, I do not agree with your implication that all Presidents are equally guilty of flouting the Constitution. I would say that is true about Nixon, Reagan and Bush II, but in my life time, I have seen no evidence of flagrant disregard from the other Presidents.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:34 AM

"In my view the right to own a gun is simply that, a right. Just as I have the right to have an opinion, say stupid things, and act foolishly now and then. A right is only a part of the covenant that is implied by the constitution. "

According to the second amendment as written and ratified, the only right you have as a gun is as part of a well regulated militia, following that it is logical to presume that the only gun you would have a "right" to own would be subjected to the the regulation of such militias.

I am not saying you can't own a gun. You can own a car, subject to reasonable regulation.

The first post of this thread says in effect that the second amendment is a good thing, but only if you ignore the first half of it which is its stated reason, and luckily for us we can, because our self appointed legal scholar says so.

If you tell me that you believe that that sort of self-serving BS is the only reasonable post here I am disappointed by both your lack of respect for reason and your lack of respect for the opinions of others on this forum. Of course you have a right to make such statements, even if they are hurtful and foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 02:34 AM

Don, I suppose I respect your right to own a gun and all, but don't I have some sort of right to be able to go around in public without being surrounded by people carrying guns? People with guns, scare the shit outa me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:11 AM

"It is arguable that if he wasn't native born and there by not an eligible candidate then any bill he signs may be unconstitutional and have to be passed again or voided."

So much for the American Dream.

Sugarfoot Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 08:33 AM

Hi Joe,

I'd be worried if I was surrounded by people with concealed pistols as well. But if they are concealed how would I know? When my Dad passed away I inherited his hand guns. I couldn't get them out of the safe soon enough.

I had this same discussion with a born again christian I worked with only substitute freedom the press for gun ownership. He was more frightened that literature he didn't approve of was more a danger to him and his family than were the hunting guns he owned. And I find that to be typical of a lot of people on both sides of the debate.

Gee Jack, I didn't think I was being self serving or hurtful.

And Sugarfoot, that may be how the law is interpreted and as Mr. Bumble said, "The law is a ass." Art sent a link to Factcheck .com which claims to have a copy of the birth certificate that is acceptable. If thats the case then the Right Wing Loons are wind bagging again and just stalling the reasonable movement of democracy.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 08:41 AM

Taconicus' BS was self serving.

Saying that everyone but Taconicus was not engaging in reasonable debate was condescending and dismissive, anyone who respects you might find that hurtful.

You have now explained your position. At least now we can compare ourselves to you definition of reason.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 08:57 AM

the Right Wing Loons are wind bagging again

Gee, ya think?? Again? You mean STILL, dontcha? The Birthers are a bunch of lunatics & always have been.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:19 AM

Look the whole thing in a nutshell, you don't have to be any more scared of a firearm then you do a car or anything else, if those owning a firearm are well trained, own it in a legal manner and are stable. I grew up surrounded by them and everyone I know carried. Never a problem of any type never an accidental shooting, nothing but these are people that knew firearms since birth. Where the problem lays is the gun laws vary so much from state to state that it is hard to make that determination of good guy or bad guy. In regard to Concealed Carry, have a look at NY's criteria. Like I said before, the finger printing, the FBI checks, the approval of the local police and sheriff and judge and a training certificate. Yet the shooting continue. Why because of so many illegal firearms on the street coming in from other states. A much needed federal standard would make things a lot better for the good citizen who wants to own and harder for the bad guy who wants to own. Nobody who is into the legal ownership of handguns wants to see them in the hands of criminals, no do we want to see a dozen new laws that do nothing to make things better. If they want gun shows, no problem but at least enforce the full background check and put some thing in place to prevent these shopping spree's by bad guys who take them to states like NY. A simple measure like that would help a lot. Passing a dozen new laws that do nothing will not help anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:31 AM

When I first moved to NY state I was appalled that all handguns needed to be registered. After a while I realized that the brown shirts were not going to kick my door in to get my weapons, it was done for other reasons like if the gun is stolen I maybe able to get it back. If my house burned down I can submit an insurance claim and prove I owned them. Likewise if you had to register a firearm purchased at a gun show, you would see a lot less guns on the street. Who is going to buy one for a bad guy knowing that it was purchased by you and registered to you in Virginia ... Lots of things can be done to make the general public safer without taking away any rights from anyone. A total ban like in DC, hell in DC there are more guns then people, look how well that worked - Not .. so some serious thinking and some make sense laws would help and I am sure most gun owners will agree. You don't have to step on the 2nd Amendment to achieve a balance of ownership and safety.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 11:05 AM

People keep trying to compare cars and buying health insurance with gun ownership. There are points to be made, but let's look at the essential question of purchase.

Anyone can buy a car, even if that person will not be old enough to drive it on public roads for years. It is when, where and how that vehicle is operated (on roads owned by the government) that are suject to regulation.

With guns, it is the purchase that is regulated, controlled or completely banned is some jurisdictions. Not the same situation as with cars at all. To be equivalent, you would allow unlimited ownership of guns but restrict their use on public lands or in public places.

Insurance, regarding ObamaCare, it still different. Purchase is mandatory. Please show us a place in the US where owning a car in mandated by the government. There are a couple of tiny towns where gun ownership (and training) is mandatoty, but they have a "conscientious objector" clause that lets anyone who does not what to purchase a gun to "opt out".

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 01:01 PM

The operative word, Ol-ster is "stable"... That where the rub is... I mean, do stable people get together with their buddies and barge into a family restaurant in packs with guns of all varieties strapped to them on holsters??? No, "stable" people don't but we sho nuff have 'um here in Virginia... Do "stable" people really need an AK-47 that has been modified to fully automatic??? No, "stable" people don't...

The problem is if the real "stable" people say one word about requiring that "stable" people are the only folks that should be able to own guns then the NRA cranks up it's bully-horn...

This is why the US is so out of whack... Too much $$$$$$ in politics and "stable" people can't do one single thing about that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 01:09 PM

Please show us a place in the US where owning a car in mandated by the government.

How about a place where automobile INSURANCE is mandated by the government? Like the entire country, for example?

As usual,PeeDee, you're a bit off the mark.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 01:10 PM

Pretty much true Bob

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: DonMeixner
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 02:29 PM

I don't know about anywhere else but it is not a requirement that you buy insurance in New York State. You have to show the ability to selfinsure to a minimum standard or buy insurance with the same coverage. Since most people can't post a cash bond so large it is just easier to buy insurance.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 03:24 PM

Self-insure, or insure thru a Company, same diff. The Jack-booted government thugs are still requiring you to have insurance of one form or another- and its perfectly legal and Constitutional.

Just like health insurance under the recent legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:56 PM

The right to bear arms required a well ordered militia and was for the person of defending against foreign invaders. There were no automatic weapons then or the use of hand guns.
Jack booted thugs are defined as the NRA.

Americans are stupid in the use of weapons. Canada and Switzerland have many weapons but the major epidemic of gun violence is in the United States.

The Second Amendment has become virtually inseparable from the insane interpretation given by the Mad Tea Party.

The Second Amendment didn't refer to rocket launchers, hand grenades, machine guns,
automatic or semi-automatic weapons or nuclear devices because the Founding Father's unreasonably assumed that Americans would be civilized in their employment of weaponry.

All you gun-toting bullies are irresponsible citizens and your use of the Second Amendment is risible.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:28 PM

What Strings said...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 09:01 PM

It certainly is striking how ignorant those who like to wrap themselves in the 2nd Amendment are about history.

As I and several others have said more than once, the 2nd Amendment didn't appear in a vacuum.   There were reasons for it which seemed crucial--at the time.

Fear of Britain making an attempt to recover the colonies which had become the US

Fear of a standing army

Fear of Indians especially on the frontier--which of course kept moving West



So it's time for those who feel the right to bear arms is still a crucial right exactly which of these they still fear. Since the rest of us have managed to overcome all of these.

Perhaps they can also tell us whether they are also more afraid of the UN's black helicopters or about the danger of fluoride in the water.   I wonder which it is. Maybe they could lie down on the couch and tell us all about it.

Added to which:

The militia cited in the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be "well-regulated".    Exactly what about buying a gun at Walmart makes you part of a "well-regulated militia"?

Those of us trying for sensible gun control are not even trying to disarm anybody.   What I would be after is a nationwide prohibition on sales of certain types of weapons which keep turning up in this senseless bloodshed we keep hearing about.   

Have as many rifles as you want.

But despite being asked more than once, up to now nobody has told us exactly why anybody other than police and the military should have semi-automatic pistols, for instance.

My concern in large part is the concealed nature of pistols.   If the AZ shooter had had to bring a rifle, it would have been rather obvious when he approached the Congresswoman. And others might have had rifles too--which might well have caused him to change plans--since it appears he did not have a death wish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 09:08 PM

Walmart, a gun show, or your local gun shop.   Same question.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:17 PM

"All you gun-toting bullies are irresponsible citizens and your use of the Second Amendment is risible."

Yeah, tell that to all the people who were slaughtered in the last thousand and more years because they had no means to defend themselves... and tell that to the people who are being murdered today all over this earth. THAT is not risible. THAT is sickening.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:29 PM

Ron Davies - "Perhaps they can also tell us whether they are also more afraid of the UN's black helicopters or about the danger of fluoride in the water.   I wonder which it is. Maybe they could lie down on the couch and tell us all about it."

Ah! The old scatter gun approach to ridicule, eh, Ron? Bring up a host of nonsequitors to show how silly anyone is who doesn't see things your way. ;-) Okay, let me first say that it's very nice of you to offer your couch. You're a real sweetheart. "Ahhhh..." (lying down and getting comfortable)

Okay. Let me give this some serious thought.

1. Am I scared that the government will take my guns away? Nope. Cross that one off the list. I'm not at all scared about that.

2. Am I scared about the U.N.'s black helicopters coming to get me? Nope. Never have given it a moment's thought.

3. Am I concerned about the ill effects on people's health from using flouridated water? Yessiree. You bet I am. I avoid drinking or using flouridated water as much as I can avoid it, based on quite a bit of serious reading I've already done about it. But.......what the heck are you doing bringing up such diverse subjects as flouridated water or the UN's black helicopters in a discussion about the Second Amendment and gun control? That's what I don't get.

Perhaps you should lie down on my couch and explain that, Ron. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:36 PM

Eat THIS!, ya specist, mango-stealing gun-haters!!!

- Chongo

p.s. 100!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:44 PM

Well exactly what other amendments to the constitution would you suggest throwing out, that nonsense one about religious freedom ( I have certainly known more than a few who think the US is a one flavor or no flavor only faith based or NON faith
nation) which neither is true.

I know lots of people that want to toss out that pesky freedom of speech. It should not apply to Liberals, or conservatives, or hate peddlers or used car salesmen..

Now does the government have the right to pass laws that regulate freedom, you bet it does but not toss out the constitution. Like it or not it is there. And for those who enjoy their legal rights to own firearms, we are neither bullies or half wits as people here so like to portray . Most are highly educated probably much more than you could know and have probably done one hell of a lot more for society as you or anyone else (as in your bad citizen quote)