"Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection" - John Howard (former Australian Prime Minister)
I never said that. If you want to have a discussion with me then stop putting words into my mouth.
I do believe there needs to be a ban, a ban on drugs that change the brain so that the person doesn't know reality. ALL ALL ALL of these shooters are mentally screwed up in some fashion. There isn't a logically sane one in the bunch. Everyone here screams ban this type of gun or ban this type of magazine... but very few look towards fixing the source of the problem. Guns don't shoot themselves, we need to get to the bottom of why people feel like they should kill other people.
That's it ban drugs no banning of any weapons at all even the staunches of conservatives believe we need to at least ban the types of weapons that have been used in the past two mass murder cases , i would def wan't better treatment of the mentally i'll but you have to meet us half way on something no ...`
Please drop that silly and ridiculous thought from your brains.
You want to know what they intended the 2A for?
"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
Don't believe it's no longer necessary? I wish I lived in your fantasy world.
...
Then, tell the pro-gun lobby to quit using it as an excuse against gun regulations.
While you're at it... tell them to quit trying to equate gun death with auto accident deaths.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Please drop that silly and ridiculous thought from your brains.
You want to know what they intended the 2A for?
"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
Don't believe it's no longer necessary? I wish I lived in your fantasy world.
...
I like this part...
"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
...
If you want to effect a change... do so by the means that Jefferson gave you... the VOTE.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Just throwing out a philosophical argument here so bear with me. If you read quotes by many of the founding fathers, and other important men of the Revolutionary and Constitutional period, in many instances the term "armed" is used. Now, obviously, we know that for the most part Jefferson, Lee, Henry, Paine, Madison, et al meant guns. But what if they mean something more? What if the underlying meaning is that we should be on guard against tyranny? If we can assume that just toting around a gun is not the entire intent of guarding against tyrannical governments then we can assume that we should also be vigilant against that which would rob of us our life, liberty, property and that what they intended was not as simple as owning a gun but being cautious in protecting ourselves. It's an argument that would assume that the real work of protection is within ourselves and not just at the point of the gun.
Gun control is only part of this equation. If we can agree that some limitations on guns is necessary, or desirable, then we should also examine the mental health component. Personal opinion though is that the root of this entire problem is societal. We can't continue to bury our head in the sand about the socialization of our children and how we are creating narcissistic children devoid of empathy.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Gun control is only part of this equation. If we can agree that some limitations on guns is necessary, or desirable, then we should also examine the mental health component. Personal opinion though is that the root of this entire problem is societal. We can't continue to bury our head in the sand about the socialization of our children and how we are creating narcissistic children devoid of empathy.
...
There it is. It is not a sigular issue... rather, multi-faceted and complicated because in comes into play with the Constitution and matters of personal rights.
The right for me to easily acquire a weapon with a lot of potential to do great harm to a great number of people... means it is just as easy for someone with an undisclosed mental condition to also have that right. Make it tougher to get that weapon... make me jump through hoops... test me... make me prove to you that I am capable of responsible ownership... I have nothing to hide.
TRY to weed out those who are more likely to use those weapons on our fellow citizens. Doesn't mean the crazy guy cannot participate in America... he just can't legally obtain a fucking gun that can pop off 100 rounds in a couple of minutes, becausee he is a fucking crazy guy.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Please drop that silly and ridiculous thought from your brains.
You want to know what they intended the 2A for?
"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
Don't believe it's no longer necessary? I wish I lived in your fantasy world.
please define "well regulated militia" being necessary for a "free state".
who does the regulating?
how are we to know who are members of said militia? You know , so we know who we can count on for citizen war.
who is to say whats "well" enough?
Is it the state thats free or just the citizens?
In all seriousness, please enlighten me.
It seems to me that the first section of the amendment gets left by the wayside in the courts and by those who trumpet this particuler amendment.
BTW I am not for banning weapons as a whole, I just believe there needs to be some kind of limits placed on it, much like the limits to speech by the courts.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Please drop that silly and ridiculous thought from your brains.
You want to know what they intended the 2A for?
"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
Don't believe it's no longer necessary? I wish I lived in your fantasy world.
...
I like this part...
"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
...
If you want to effect a change... do so by the means that Jefferson gave you... the VOTE.
Trying. Being Libertarian isn't as popular as I would hope.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
please define "well regulated militia" being necessary for a "free state".
who does the regulating?
how are we to know who are members of said militia? You know , so we know who we can count on for citizen war.
who is to say whats "well" enough?
Is it the state thats free or just the citizens?
In all seriousness, please enlighten me.
It seems to me that the first section of the amendment gets left by the wayside in the courts and by those who trumpet this particuler amendment.
BTW I am not for banning weapons as a whole, I just believe there needs to be some kind of limits placed on it, much like the limits to speech by the courts.
A militia is of the people, free people, civilians. The state is exactly that, a state. The (federal) general government is not supposed to intrude on any state. That's why we have Art I Sec VIII of the Constitution, of which spells out EXACTLY what the responsibilities of the general (federal) government are. Any extra activities are a violation of the State. Plus the 10th Amendment gives the State authority to do everything not specified in Art I Sec VIII
Jefferson and Madison were proponents of the free state and that the federal government was to be limited in its' power by art I sec VIII. Hence the original name of the country THESE United States of America, not THE United States of America. The power was supposed to be with the STATES. That's why Libertarians, like myself, argue for a Constitutionally Limited Federal Government. THAT is what the Founding Fathers wanted.
Trying. Being Libertarian isn't as popular as I would hope.
...
I'm telling you... the thing to do is to work it out with the other Independent Parties. Come to agreeable compromises. Start small, hitting small congressional districts. Get a hold in the House... take root. Become a viable voting block that is neither Republican nor Democrat.
From there... take on a Senate Seat. All you really need is about 5... to upset the the balance of 2 parties. Make your issues heard.
That's how it's going to happen. The trick is getting the Independents to agree/compromise form a viable alternative. If you can't do that, you might as well vote for Republican or Democrat or abstain.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
please define "well regulated militia" being necessary for a "free state".
who does the regulating?
how are we to know who are members of said militia? You know , so we know who we can count on for citizen war.
who is to say whats "well" enough?
Is it the state thats free or just the citizens?
In all seriousness, please enlighten me.
It seems to me that the first section of the amendment gets left by the wayside in the courts and by those who trumpet this particuler amendment.
BTW I am not for banning weapons as a whole, I just believe there needs to be some kind of limits placed on it, much like the limits to speech by the courts.
A militia is of the people, free people, civilians. The state is exactly that, a state. The (federal) general government is not supposed to intrude on any state. That's why we have Art I Sec VIII of the Constitution, of which spells out EXACTLY what the responsibilities of the general (federal) government are. Any extra activities are a violation of the State. Plus the 10th Amendment gives the State authority to do everything not specified in Art I Sec VIII
Jefferson and Madison were proponents of the free state and that the federal government was to be limited in its' power by art I sec VIII. Hence the original name of the country THESE United States of America, not THE United States of America. The power was supposed to be with the STATES. That's why Libertarians, like myself, argue for a Constitutionally Limited Federal Government. THAT is what the Founding Fathers wanted.
so in your post about Chicago then, in light of this, do you now reverse your stance?
It seems that local wishes should apply too. Chicago chose for their municipalty that they prefered that no one carried concealed.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
most of the pro gun folks on here are paranoid or fearful about the government becoming tyrants. if the government became tyranical, who are they going to send in to take your land or guns, or whatever?
the military. the army, the marines, at the behest of the pentagon. it will be your automatic rifles against tanks, humvees, rockets, planes, drones, things that you can not possibly defeat with your automatic weapons.
the ironic thing is that the people who are pro gun seem to be yelling the loudest about the pending cuts to the pentagon and the military.
if you were really worried about a government of tyrants, why would you not want to cut the defense and pentagon and military budget???
seems to me all of you would be better served to support going over the fiscal cliff and cutting military spending, because it is that military that would do the fighting against you at the behest of the government.
just my late night random thoughts...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
most of the pro gun folks on here are paranoid or fearful about the government becoming tyrants. if the government became tyranical, who are they going to send in to take your land or guns, or whatever?
the military. the army, the marines, at the behest of the pentagon. it will be your automatic rifles against tanks, humvees, rockets, planes, drones, things that you can not possibly defeat with your automatic weapons.
the ironic thing is that the people who are pro gun seem to be yelling the loudest about the pending cuts to the pentagon and the military.
if you were really worried about a government of tyrants, why would you not want to cut the defense and pentagon and military budget???
seems to me all of you would be better served to support going over the fiscal cliff and cutting military spending, because it is that military that would do the fighting against you at the behest of the government.
just my late night random thoughts...
Well said. Lot's of hypocrisy and nonsense from that side of the fence.
Furthermore, I already see our government as tyrannical.....just not in violent ways.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
please define "well regulated militia" being necessary for a "free st
so in your post about Chicago then, in light of this, do you now reverse your stance?
It seems that local wishes should apply too. Chicago chose for their municipalty that they prefered that no one carried concealed.
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Chicago is not a state as much as it tries to control the state. The Supreme Court has already affirmed the Bill of Rights as individual rights.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
so in your post about Chicago then, in light of this, do you now reverse your stance?
It seems that local wishes should apply too. Chicago chose for their municipalty that they prefered that no one carried concealed.
[/quote][/quote]
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Chicago is not a state as much as it tries to control the state. The Supreme Court has already affirmed the Bill of Rights as individual rights.
"You put us back into a cycle where the responsible gun owners who don't mind some minor changes to encourage upholding the American tradition of safe shooting get stuck feeling defensive against the condescension of people who've never fired a gun."
This has been a problem in the past I think. I know a lot of gun owners who openly admit that the laws in the USA are too lax. Now its just getting the NRA and politicians to have an open honest discussion and make a few changes. It doesnt take much research to realize that our gun laws are laughable in respect to other countries.
See I have a issue with us making any change to anything to be like other countries.
:fp: Its not about "being like other countries." I'm amazed that that is all you took from that entire post. Its simply about being the world leader (by far) in gun deaths, mishaps, accidents, mass shootings and coincidentally having some of the most lenient laws and the most guns. There's a relation there that could be helped to the slightest degree with some changes/compromises.
THE 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the one about the right to bear arms, has among the most rubbish grammar in the English language, writes Stan Denham
MY English teacher at Crows Nest Boys' High in the early '70s was a stickler for grammar. The dreaded dangling participle - "flitting gaily from flower to flower, the football player watched the bee" - was near the top of her grammar 101 list of don'ts.
Her reasoning, firmly explained to us, was that bad grammar could be the cause of much confusion.
It's a pity Mrs Hossack wasn't around in the late 18th century when America's Founding Fathers were framing their Constitution.
That's because the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the controversial one about the right to bear arms, contains one of the most hotly debated pieces of rubbish grammar in the history of the English language.
The 2nd Amendment is so poorly written it can be interpreted in a number of ways - and successive generations have been arguing about the meaning for a century.
As first ratified by Congress, it 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".
With representatives of the states thrashing out agreement on the document, Thomas Jefferson took out a couple of commas. But it hasn't helped much.
In America, the question generally asked is whether it applies only to keeping a citizen militia in the defence of the state or whether that right is extended to every citizen.
It's especially pertinent since that amorphous revolutionary military body has now morphed into the National Guard and the world's most powerful standing army.
When it was first drawn up, the 2nd Amendment - based on the Protestant right to bear arms of the earlier English Bill of Rights - probably covered personal ownership of a few hundred thousand muzzle-loading muskets and rifles by citizen soldiers ... hopefully enough to keep the pesky British at bay should they return.
It had a role to play, but history performed a nasty pea-and-thimble trick. Today the US is chock-a-block with modern, high-powered weapons. Current estimates are that there are 300-350 million legal firearms in the US. Just about one for every man, woman and child.
In Britain the right to bear arms, like many other laws that make up its Constitution, eventually came to be seen more as a position on the supremacy of an (elected) Parliament over iron-fisted rule at the whim of an absolutist monarch.
Our laws can be changed by (elected) parliaments, and evolve with the times. In the US, what's in the Bill of Rights is set in stone (or at least written on a bit of paper) and has come to mean something different to different people.
Plenty in the gun lobby in the US will tell you, without a hint of irony, that they keep arms as a safeguard against the tyranny of their own (elected) government.
But here's the reality: While US politicians seek not to rock the boat with the powerful US gun lobby and the debate goes on about whether the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism, lunatics can still legally obtain high-powered firearms. The gun lobby won't see the correlation between easy availability of firearms and mass shootings. It will wring its hands in feigned despair and deplore the actions of the man with the gun, but the gun won't carry any blame.
And its members will tell you that, regardless of the damage done, they own firearms for good reasons. Such as "it's our 2nd Amendment right" and even sensible controls would infringe that right.
In a society that is hugely rights-driven, Americans more often than not seem to have their priorities completely inverted. Even those gun owners - the majority - who say they need a handgun under the pillow or a semi-automatic in the hallway cupboard to deter criminal intruders are tossing up a red herring.
Yes, there are lots of illegal guns in the US in the hands of criminals and, yes, it's a valid argument up to a point. But the real debate is now about the type of firearm you should be able to own, the type of controls, if any, and whether identical controls should be brought in across the US.
More kids die in the US from accidental shootings with legally owned firearms than do criminals caught in the act and shot by homeowners or businesspeople.
As for rights ... how about the right to send your cherished child off to school in the not unreasonable expectation they'll come home smiling and with an empty lunch box, not in a wooden box.
They're the real natural rights and I'm all for rights - free speech in particular, even the right to own a firearm, provided there are sensible controls and checks and balances on ownership and use.
One thing's for sure, though: the Founding Fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew that a bold idea guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had slowly turned a wonderful experiment into a giant human shooting gallery - all because of a few poorly chosen words written on a piece of paper.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
See I have a issue with us making any change to anything to be like other countries.
why? other countries look at what the US is doing good and copy to a point.. why can't the US do the same? see what is going on around the world in a good way and copy it? That would mean what? The US is weak or something?
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
See I have a issue with us making any change to anything to be like other countries.
why? other countries look at what the US is doing good and copy to a point.. why can't the US do the same? see what is going on around the world in a good way and copy it? That would mean what? The US is weak or something?
Yes, successful companies do this all the time. Benchmarking.
See I have a issue with us making any change to anything to be like other countries.
why? other countries look at what the US is doing good and copy to a point.. why can't the US do the same? see what is going on around the world in a good way and copy it? That would mean what? The US is weak or something?
Yes, successful companies do this all the time. Benchmarking.
right surely most American's aren't that egocentric to think everything America does is perfect... no country is perfect.. things always need fixing and improving. this is one of them obviously.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
In today's world, the second amendment is antiquated. If we truly should be armed to protect us against a tyrannical government, then we should be allowed to have tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons.
No one is throwing a fit about restricting those, but the restricting semi-automatic rifles or magazine is suddenly the end of the world.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Trying. Being Libertarian isn't as popular as I would hope.
Honestly, the candidate you champion in your avatar bares some responsibility for that. Had he chosen to run a third party campaign as a Libertarian he would have not only given his voters an alternative but also brought countless new voters into the fold. I was greatly disappointed by his decision to enter the Republican primary and then "suspend" his campaign, particularly since he is retiring from Congress anyway.
Comments
2011 ~ Canberra (EV)
2011 ~ Melbourne 2 (EV)
2014 ~ Melbourne BDO
2014 ~ Melbourne 1 (EV)
"Pearl jam are not just a band, they are a choice, and if you make that choice, you become one of the few lucky people on this planet to have your life enriched by the greatest gift that music ever gave" -- substitute
<a href="http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs28/f/2008/157/3/7/Do_the_Evolution_by_ragnarok2k3.gif"</a>
<img src="http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs28/f/2008/157/3/7/Do_the_Evolution_by_ragnarok2k3.gif">
Ugh, have a nice day.
Heard that somewhere recently, seems apt here.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Then, tell the pro-gun lobby to quit using it as an excuse against gun regulations.
While you're at it... tell them to quit trying to equate gun death with auto accident deaths.
Hail, Hail!!!
I like this part...
"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
...
If you want to effect a change... do so by the means that Jefferson gave you... the VOTE.
Hail, Hail!!!
Gun control is only part of this equation. If we can agree that some limitations on guns is necessary, or desirable, then we should also examine the mental health component. Personal opinion though is that the root of this entire problem is societal. We can't continue to bury our head in the sand about the socialization of our children and how we are creating narcissistic children devoid of empathy.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
There it is. It is not a sigular issue... rather, multi-faceted and complicated because in comes into play with the Constitution and matters of personal rights.
The right for me to easily acquire a weapon with a lot of potential to do great harm to a great number of people... means it is just as easy for someone with an undisclosed mental condition to also have that right. Make it tougher to get that weapon... make me jump through hoops... test me... make me prove to you that I am capable of responsible ownership... I have nothing to hide.
TRY to weed out those who are more likely to use those weapons on our fellow citizens. Doesn't mean the crazy guy cannot participate in America... he just can't legally obtain a fucking gun that can pop off 100 rounds in a couple of minutes, becausee he is a fucking crazy guy.
Hail, Hail!!!
who does the regulating?
how are we to know who are members of said militia? You know , so we know who we can count on for citizen war.
who is to say whats "well" enough?
Is it the state thats free or just the citizens?
In all seriousness, please enlighten me.
It seems to me that the first section of the amendment gets left by the wayside in the courts and by those who trumpet this particuler amendment.
BTW I am not for banning weapons as a whole, I just believe there needs to be some kind of limits placed on it, much like the limits to speech by the courts.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Trying. Being Libertarian isn't as popular as I would hope.
A militia is of the people, free people, civilians. The state is exactly that, a state. The (federal) general government is not supposed to intrude on any state. That's why we have Art I Sec VIII of the Constitution, of which spells out EXACTLY what the responsibilities of the general (federal) government are. Any extra activities are a violation of the State. Plus the 10th Amendment gives the State authority to do everything not specified in Art I Sec VIII
Jefferson and Madison were proponents of the free state and that the federal government was to be limited in its' power by art I sec VIII. Hence the original name of the country THESE United States of America, not THE United States of America. The power was supposed to be with the STATES. That's why Libertarians, like myself, argue for a Constitutionally Limited Federal Government. THAT is what the Founding Fathers wanted.
I'm telling you... the thing to do is to work it out with the other Independent Parties. Come to agreeable compromises. Start small, hitting small congressional districts. Get a hold in the House... take root. Become a viable voting block that is neither Republican nor Democrat.
From there... take on a Senate Seat. All you really need is about 5... to upset the the balance of 2 parties. Make your issues heard.
That's how it's going to happen. The trick is getting the Independents to agree/compromise form a viable alternative. If you can't do that, you might as well vote for Republican or Democrat or abstain.
Hail, Hail!!!
It seems that local wishes should apply too. Chicago chose for their municipalty that they prefered that no one carried concealed.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
most of the pro gun folks on here are paranoid or fearful about the government becoming tyrants. if the government became tyranical, who are they going to send in to take your land or guns, or whatever?
the military. the army, the marines, at the behest of the pentagon. it will be your automatic rifles against tanks, humvees, rockets, planes, drones, things that you can not possibly defeat with your automatic weapons.
the ironic thing is that the people who are pro gun seem to be yelling the loudest about the pending cuts to the pentagon and the military.
if you were really worried about a government of tyrants, why would you not want to cut the defense and pentagon and military budget???
seems to me all of you would be better served to support going over the fiscal cliff and cutting military spending, because it is that military that would do the fighting against you at the behest of the government.
just my late night random thoughts...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Well said. Lot's of hypocrisy and nonsense from that side of the fence.
Furthermore, I already see our government as tyrannical.....just not in violent ways.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Chicago is not a state as much as it tries to control the state. The Supreme Court has already affirmed the Bill of Rights as individual rights.
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Chicago is not a state as much as it tries to control the state. The Supreme Court has already affirmed the Bill of Rights as individual rights.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/d ... ?hpt=op_t1
What do you think about this opinion?
Good read.
"You put us back into a cycle where the responsible gun owners who don't mind some minor changes to encourage upholding the American tradition of safe shooting get stuck feeling defensive against the condescension of people who've never fired a gun."
This has been a problem in the past I think. I know a lot of gun owners who openly admit that the laws in the USA are too lax. Now its just getting the NRA and politicians to have an open honest discussion and make a few changes. It doesnt take much research to realize that our gun laws are laughable in respect to other countries.
:fp: Its not about "being like other countries." I'm amazed that that is all you took from that entire post. Its simply about being the world leader (by far) in gun deaths, mishaps, accidents, mass shootings and coincidentally having some of the most lenient laws and the most guns. There's a relation there that could be helped to the slightest degree with some changes/compromises.
MY English teacher at Crows Nest Boys' High in the early '70s was a stickler for grammar. The dreaded dangling participle - "flitting gaily from flower to flower, the football player watched the bee" - was near the top of her grammar 101 list of don'ts.
Her reasoning, firmly explained to us, was that bad grammar could be the cause of much confusion.
It's a pity Mrs Hossack wasn't around in the late 18th century when America's Founding Fathers were framing their Constitution.
That's because the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the controversial one about the right to bear arms, contains one of the most hotly debated pieces of rubbish grammar in the history of the English language.
The 2nd Amendment is so poorly written it can be interpreted in a number of ways - and successive generations have been arguing about the meaning for a century.
As first ratified by Congress, it 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".
With representatives of the states thrashing out agreement on the document, Thomas Jefferson took out a couple of commas. But it hasn't helped much.
In America, the question generally asked is whether it applies only to keeping a citizen militia in the defence of the state or whether that right is extended to every citizen.
It's especially pertinent since that amorphous revolutionary military body has now morphed into the National Guard and the world's most powerful standing army.
When it was first drawn up, the 2nd Amendment - based on the Protestant right to bear arms of the earlier English Bill of Rights - probably covered personal ownership of a few hundred thousand muzzle-loading muskets and rifles by citizen soldiers ... hopefully enough to keep the pesky British at bay should they return.
It had a role to play, but history performed a nasty pea-and-thimble trick. Today the US is chock-a-block with modern, high-powered weapons. Current estimates are that there are 300-350 million legal firearms in the US. Just about one for every man, woman and child.
In Britain the right to bear arms, like many other laws that make up its Constitution, eventually came to be seen more as a position on the supremacy of an (elected) Parliament over iron-fisted rule at the whim of an absolutist monarch.
Our laws can be changed by (elected) parliaments, and evolve with the times. In the US, what's in the Bill of Rights is set in stone (or at least written on a bit of paper) and has come to mean something different to different people.
Plenty in the gun lobby in the US will tell you, without a hint of irony, that they keep arms as a safeguard against the tyranny of their own (elected) government.
But here's the reality: While US politicians seek not to rock the boat with the powerful US gun lobby and the debate goes on about whether the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism, lunatics can still legally obtain high-powered firearms. The gun lobby won't see the correlation between easy availability of firearms and mass shootings. It will wring its hands in feigned despair and deplore the actions of the man with the gun, but the gun won't carry any blame.
And its members will tell you that, regardless of the damage done, they own firearms for good reasons. Such as "it's our 2nd Amendment right" and even sensible controls would infringe that right.
In a society that is hugely rights-driven, Americans more often than not seem to have their priorities completely inverted. Even those gun owners - the majority - who say they need a handgun under the pillow or a semi-automatic in the hallway cupboard to deter criminal intruders are tossing up a red herring.
Yes, there are lots of illegal guns in the US in the hands of criminals and, yes, it's a valid argument up to a point. But the real debate is now about the type of firearm you should be able to own, the type of controls, if any, and whether identical controls should be brought in across the US.
More kids die in the US from accidental shootings with legally owned firearms than do criminals caught in the act and shot by homeowners or businesspeople.
As for rights ... how about the right to send your cherished child off to school in the not unreasonable expectation they'll come home smiling and with an empty lunch box, not in a wooden box.
They're the real natural rights and I'm all for rights - free speech in particular, even the right to own a firearm, provided there are sensible controls and checks and balances on ownership and use.
One thing's for sure, though: the Founding Fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew that a bold idea guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had slowly turned a wonderful experiment into a giant human shooting gallery - all because of a few poorly chosen words written on a piece of paper.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
why? other countries look at what the US is doing good and copy to a point.. why can't the US do the same? see what is going on around the world in a good way and copy it? That would mean what? The US is weak or something?
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Yes, successful companies do this all the time. Benchmarking.
right surely most American's aren't that egocentric to think everything America does is perfect... no country is perfect.. things always need fixing and improving. this is one of them obviously.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
In today's world, the second amendment is antiquated. If we truly should be armed to protect us against a tyrannical government, then we should be allowed to have tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons.
No one is throwing a fit about restricting those, but the restricting semi-automatic rifles or magazine is suddenly the end of the world.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Do you mind explaining why?
Honestly, the candidate you champion in your avatar bares some responsibility for that. Had he chosen to run a third party campaign as a Libertarian he would have not only given his voters an alternative but also brought countless new voters into the fold. I was greatly disappointed by his decision to enter the Republican primary and then "suspend" his campaign, particularly since he is retiring from Congress anyway.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."