Have you read recently how many guns are in Canada? That's only those we know about.
I sincerely hope you won't need a gun. I sincerely hope you can protect your home, your children,
your loved ones by relying on others. This is your plan and your choice.
But for me self reliance is important. I'm not going to bank
on being protected by the government, the police, my fellow man. You see in pandemonium
unfortunately it is everyone for themselves. And as horrible as Sandy was
I am not talking about a hurricane or an isolated part of my country.
It is plain and simple common sense preparedness.
Actually for me the fear is thick amongst those who want to take guns away from people.
It is none of your business if I choose to own a gun for preparedness and protection,
yet you make it so. I can only wonder why that is and I have to realize it is fear.
Just as I can only wonder why you would want to take my Lucy Lew from me as well.
I guess because you do not understand and what we can't understand we fear.
Do you carry insurance? all kinds? Me too.
but you AREN'T self reliant in this context. you have stated several times that you don't own a gun or know how to shoot one, your husband does. that's not self reliant.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Meanwhile Obama is on his gun control tour asking for help in getting legislation passed. He might as well stand up there and ask for help keeping the public disarmed, defenseless, and helpless. That's how they want you. Sorry, I'm not participating in that nonsense.
Meanwhile Obama is on his gun control tour asking for help in getting legislation passed. He might as well stand up there and ask for help keeping the public disarmed, defenseless, and helpless. That's how they want you. Sorry, I'm not participating in that nonsense.
Forget everything else, Is there that much dislike for tougher background checks?
Also, I don't want to take anyone guns away or we could just have a free for all society where we have anyone over 18 being able to purchase a gun without any checks.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I'd be for tougher background checks if they did two other things:
1. No registry gets created on what people are buying.
2. Will it solve inner city gang violence where most gun crime is?
If the answers are no registry and Chicago murders get to near zero then I'm on board.
I'll never understand what the problem is with #1. please explain to me the issue with your gun being registered like your vehicle.
Pretty simple really.....here in America you just never know who your next President could be. Gotta stay prepared for some crazy bastard like Bloomberg getting elected
Registering guns to me is a bit much. Yes, I can see the positives, but will it help, that is something that must be proven before it becomes law.
For me, I am happy with the executive orders Obama did. The universal background checks are great, gun research can finally be done, schools have option to allow guns on site, and steps to ensure mental help have been taken. Can't argue with that (even though people somehow find a way to do so).
Banning guns and registering weapons is just not an option in this country. America has come too far to do such things anymore. America can't live with or without guns. Change is essentially impossible.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I'd be for tougher background checks if they did two other things:
1. No registry gets created on what people are buying.
2. Will it solve inner city gang violence where most gun crime is?
If the answers are no registry and Chicago murders get to near zero then I'm on board.
I'll never understand what the problem is with #1. please explain to me the issue with your gun being registered like your vehicle.
Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, owning a firearm so I can defend my family is. They have no business in my business.
had cars been invented at the time of your founding fathers, it would have been ammendment #3, and you all would be screaming and crying every time you got a ticket ("it's my right! I can go as fast as I want to! I'm responsible! Don't punish me for the bad drivers out there!") or if you were told you had to insure it.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
In medieval times... there were similar documents or mentalities as the constitution. One was the Divine Right of Kings. In essence, the King of England did not need to answer to any human being and could rule as he saw fit.
Poor rule and evil misdoings became a bit of a sore spot for the masses and many who were subjected to the ideology recognized it for its weakness in serving humanity. They sought change. Of course, there were your fair number of donkeys that opposed change saying things like, "This is the way it has been written and so it shall be!" More than likely... these people benefitted in some capacity and so therefore, they supported the King to serve themselves.
Fortunately, there were leaders and their supporters who never sat idle in the face of injustice. At great risk to themselves, they eventually spit in the face of the Divine Right to Rule and, ignoring the selfish who were 'reluctant to change for progress', a King (Charles I) was beheaded. This was in 1649.
I know, I know... I have illustrated a case for the paranoid faction that insists this form of tyranny is anxious to manifest itself again. This was not my intent. My intent is to illustrate that just because something is... doesn't mean something is right. Change is a necessary element of life. We must continue to be a dynamic and continually evolving species if we ever hope to achieve universal happiness. Ancient documents should not dictate future way of life when they are proven to be ineffective or become antiquated and irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers of the USA would be slapping their foreheads and cursing aloud at the failures of the leaders that followed their existence in allowing a country with such an outstanding beginning to slip into what it has become instead of what it might be. The constitution was a great piece of work, but just like all great pieces of work... it needs a little maintenance to keep its worth.
The most armed country in the world boasts 11,000 gun deaths per year, numerous senseless national tragedies, and people fearing their neighbours. These facts beg some form of consideration. The musket has evolved to weapons of incredible efficiency and levels of deadliness. So too must the constitution. I believe this is the task that is incumbent on the American people and, in my opinion, to deny this is either asinine or self-serving.
had cars been invented at the time of your founding fathers, it would have been ammendment #3, and you all would be screaming and crying every time you got a ticket ("it's my right! I can go as fast as I want to! I'm responsible! Don't punish me for the bad drivers out there!") or if you were told you had to insure it.
Drama much?
You ask me a question, I gave you my answer, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I apologize.
had cars been invented at the time of your founding fathers, it would have been ammendment #3, and you all would be screaming and crying every time you got a ticket ("it's my right! I can go as fast as I want to! I'm responsible! Don't punish me for the bad drivers out there!") or if you were told you had to insure it.
Drama much?
You ask me a question, I gave you my answer, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I apologize.
aw, that's a pretty weak attempt to bait me. surely you can do better!
no drama, just the truth.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
In medieval times... there were similar documents or mentalities as the constitution. One was the Divine Right of Kings. In essence, the King of England did not need to answer to any human being and could rule as he saw fit.
Poor rule and evil misdoings became a bit of a sore spot for the masses and many who were subjected to the ideology recognized it for its weakness in serving humanity. They sought change. Of course, there were your fair number of donkeys that opposed change saying things like, "This is the way it has been written and so it shall be!" More than likely... these people benefitted in some capacity and so therefore, they supported the King to serve themselves.
Fortunately, there were leaders and their supporters who never sat idle in the face of injustice. At great risk to themselves, they eventually spit in the face of the Divine Right to Rule and, ignoring the selfish who were 'reluctant to change for progress', a King (Charles I) was beheaded. This was in 1649.
I know, I know... I have illustrated a case for the paranoid faction that insists this form of tyranny is anxious to manifest itself again. This was not my intent. My intent is to illustrate that just because something is... doesn't mean something is right. Change is a necessary element of life. We must continue to be a dynamic and continually evolving species if we ever hope to achieve universal happiness. Ancient documents should not dictate future way of life when they are proven to be ineffective or become antiquated and irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers of the USA would be slapping their foreheads and cursing aloud at the failures of the leaders that followed their existence in allowing a country with such an outstanding beginning to slip into what it has become instead of what it might be. The constitution was a great piece of work, but just like all great pieces of work... it needs a little maintenance to keep its worth.
The most armed country in the world boasts 11,000 gun deaths per year, numerous senseless national tragedies, and people fearing their neighbours. These facts beg some form of consideration. The musket has evolved to weapons of incredible efficiency and levels of deadliness. So too must the constitution. I believe this is the task that is incumbent on the American people and, in my opinion, to deny this is either asinine or self-serving.
I can identify with your last words here and agree...
It is totally asinine and self-serving to suggest removing people's rights
most especially in other people's countries.
I also agree that the founding fathers would be slapping their heads
at those who think they would be slapping their heads for creating our constitution
with the forethought to last hundreds of years for the same reasons it was created so long ago.
I'm sure you'd be getting a great big wtf You are certainly cut from different cloth then they,
than Americans who value their rights.
Some of the assumptions and outrageous insults by people not within our borders
leaves me quite sure we are again at what you can not understand you fear.
You can not understand why we want, need and enjoy our gun rights
whether we choose to own a gun or not.
If you did you would not entertain taking them away. Same goes for our dogs :?
Both are here to stay.
In medieval times... there were similar documents or mentalities as the constitution. One was the Divine Right of Kings. In essence, the King of England did not need to answer to any human being and could rule as he saw fit.
Poor rule and evil misdoings became a bit of a sore spot for the masses and many who were subjected to the ideology recognized it for its weakness in serving humanity. They sought change. Of course, there were your fair number of donkeys that opposed change saying things like, "This is the way it has been written and so it shall be!" More than likely... these people benefitted in some capacity and so therefore, they supported the King to serve themselves.
Fortunately, there were leaders and their supporters who never sat idle in the face of injustice. At great risk to themselves, they eventually spit in the face of the Divine Right to Rule and, ignoring the selfish who were 'reluctant to change for progress', a King (Charles I) was beheaded. This was in 1649.
I know, I know... I have illustrated a case for the paranoid faction that insists this form of tyranny is anxious to manifest itself again. This was not my intent. My intent is to illustrate that just because something is... doesn't mean something is right. Change is a necessary element of life. We must continue to be a dynamic and continually evolving species if we ever hope to achieve universal happiness. Ancient documents should not dictate future way of life when they are proven to be ineffective or become antiquated and irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers of the USA would be slapping their foreheads and cursing aloud at the failures of the leaders that followed their existence in allowing a country with such an outstanding beginning to slip into what it has become instead of what it might be. The constitution was a great piece of work, but just like all great pieces of work... it needs a little maintenance to keep its worth.
The most armed country in the world boasts 11,000 gun deaths per year, numerous senseless national tragedies, and people fearing their neighbours. These facts beg some form of consideration. The musket has evolved to weapons of incredible efficiency and levels of deadliness. So too must the constitution. I believe this is the task that is incumbent on the American people and, in my opinion, to deny this is either asinine or self-serving.
I can identify with your last words here and agree...
It is totally asinine and self-serving to suggest removing people's rights
most especially in other people's countries.
I also agree that the founding fathers would be slapping their heads
at those who think they would be slapping their heads for creating our constitution
with the forethought to last hundreds of years for the same reasons it was created so long ago.
I'm sure you'd be getting a great big wtf You are certainly cut from different cloth then they,
than Americans who value their rights.
Some of the assumptions and outrageous insults by people not within our borders
leaves me quite sure we are again at what you can not understand you fear.
You can not understand why we want, need and enjoy our gun rights
whether we choose to own a gun or not.
If you did you would not entertain taking them away. Same goes for our dogs :?
Both are here to stay.
Then enjoy them and all the sufferings that come with them.
In medieval times... there were similar documents or mentalities as the constitution. One was the Divine Right of Kings. In essence, the King of England did not need to answer to any human being and could rule as he saw fit.
Poor rule and evil misdoings became a bit of a sore spot for the masses and many who were subjected to the ideology recognized it for its weakness in serving humanity. They sought change. Of course, there were your fair number of donkeys that opposed change saying things like, "This is the way it has been written and so it shall be!" More than likely... these people benefitted in some capacity and so therefore, they supported the King to serve themselves.
Fortunately, there were leaders and their supporters who never sat idle in the face of injustice. At great risk to themselves, they eventually spit in the face of the Divine Right to Rule and, ignoring the selfish who were 'reluctant to change for progress', a King (Charles I) was beheaded. This was in 1649.
I know, I know... I have illustrated a case for the paranoid faction that insists this form of tyranny is anxious to manifest itself again. This was not my intent. My intent is to illustrate that just because something is... doesn't mean something is right. Change is a necessary element of life. We must continue to be a dynamic and continually evolving species if we ever hope to achieve universal happiness. Ancient documents should not dictate future way of life when they are proven to be ineffective or become antiquated and irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers of the USA would be slapping their foreheads and cursing aloud at the failures of the leaders that followed their existence in allowing a country with such an outstanding beginning to slip into what it has become instead of what it might be. The constitution was a great piece of work, but just like all great pieces of work... it needs a little maintenance to keep its worth.
The most armed country in the world boasts 11,000 gun deaths per year, numerous senseless national tragedies, and people fearing their neighbours. These facts beg some form of consideration. The musket has evolved to weapons of incredible efficiency and levels of deadliness. So too must the constitution. I believe this is the task that is incumbent on the American people and, in my opinion, to deny this is either asinine or self-serving.
extremely well put.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Progressives :? more like pompous' expecting to remove the rights of others is just
an incredibly pompous view on life and other people.
Again what one can not understand they fear so they must try to make others
just like them. I'm pretty sure that won't be happening. Well not for some of us.
I respect our Constitution, our rights as many do. Our individuality,
our choices. I can choose to own a gun, be prepared in my life, be self reliant
while some will depend on others. It's all about choices. I also choose to own
a most lovely pit bull mix who would protect me at all costs. My beautiful big big love
like no other.
In medieval times... there were similar documents or mentalities as the constitution. One was the Divine Right of Kings. In essence, the King of England did not need to answer to any human being and could rule as he saw fit.
Poor rule and evil misdoings became a bit of a sore spot for the masses and many who were subjected to the ideology recognized it for its weakness in serving humanity. They sought change. Of course, there were your fair number of donkeys that opposed change saying things like, "This is the way it has been written and so it shall be!" More than likely... these people benefitted in some capacity and so therefore, they supported the King to serve themselves.
Fortunately, there were leaders and their supporters who never sat idle in the face of injustice. At great risk to themselves, they eventually spit in the face of the Divine Right to Rule and, ignoring the selfish who were 'reluctant to change for progress', a King (Charles I) was beheaded. This was in 1649.
I know, I know... I have illustrated a case for the paranoid faction that insists this form of tyranny is anxious to manifest itself again. This was not my intent. My intent is to illustrate that just because something is... doesn't mean something is right. Change is a necessary element of life. We must continue to be a dynamic and continually evolving species if we ever hope to achieve universal happiness. Ancient documents should not dictate future way of life when they are proven to be ineffective or become antiquated and irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers of the USA would be slapping their foreheads and cursing aloud at the failures of the leaders that followed their existence in allowing a country with such an outstanding beginning to slip into what it has become instead of what it might be. The constitution was a great piece of work, but just like all great pieces of work... it needs a little maintenance to keep its worth.
The most armed country in the world boasts 11,000 gun deaths per year, numerous senseless national tragedies, and people fearing their neighbours. These facts beg some form of consideration. The musket has evolved to weapons of incredible efficiency and levels of deadliness. So too must the constitution. I believe this is the task that is incumbent on the American people and, in my opinion, to deny this is either asinine or self-serving.
I can identify with your last words here and agree...
It is totally asinine and self-serving to suggest removing people's rights
most especially in other people's countries.
I also agree that the founding fathers would be slapping their heads
at those who think they would be slapping their heads for creating our constitution
with the forethought to last hundreds of years for the same reasons it was created so long ago.
I'm sure you'd be getting a great big wtf You are certainly cut from different cloth then they,
than Americans who value their rights.
Some of the assumptions and outrageous insults by people not within our borders
leaves me quite sure we are again at what you can not understand you fear.
You can not understand why we want, need and enjoy our gun rights
whether we choose to own a gun or not.
If you did you would not entertain taking them away. Same goes for our dogs :?
Both are here to stay.
Then enjoy them and all the sufferings that come with them.
Does this mean the Canadian Crusade is over? kidding, sort of.
Really each country must care for itself, that is the responsibility of it's citizens.
We will see what the majority of our citizens, yours, mine want and expect
in their prospective countries. What we are each comfortable with.
I am hoping it is all about choice. Being an American that is what our country is based on.
It is what I believe in.
What is the purpose of registering guns again? What is thought to be accomplished here?
Is it so the government knows who has a gun and who doesn't? Can this information
be made public? How did that info get out there for the world to see?
We know the people who are living violent lives, criminals, won't register their guns.
I am more in favor of the local permit laws which already exist.
What is the purpose of registering guns again? What is thought to be accomplished here?
Is it so the government knows who has a gun and who doesn't? Can this information
be made public? How did that info get out there for the world to see?
We know the people who are living violent lives, criminals, won't register their guns.
I am more in favor of the local permit laws which already exist.
It is very useful information for police investigations. Also, I think it would be useful and would make me feel more comfortable to have it on record when people are collecting huge numbers of firearms, and what kinds, because just because someone is registering their gun, doesn't mean they are responsible, law abiding people (if they are, wonderful - nothing for them or anyone else to worry about). And for criminals who wouldn't register, many crimes are committed with stolen or sold guns. If they can find the original owner of the gun used in a crime, they may be able to connect the dots and find the criminal... or the ones who got the weapon to the criminal. I can think of many reasons why registering guns could come in handy, but no reasons as to why they shouldn't be registered.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
but you AREN'T self reliant in this context. you have stated several times that you don't own a gun or know how to shoot one, your husband does. that's not self reliant.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Women are the fasting growing group of gun owners.
Forget everything else, Is there that much dislike for tougher background checks?
Also, I don't want to take anyone guns away or we could just have a free for all society where we have anyone over 18 being able to purchase a gun without any checks.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
1. No registry gets created on what people are buying.
2. Will it solve inner city gang violence where most gun crime is?
If the answers are no registry and Chicago murders get to near zero then I'm on board.
I'll never understand what the problem is with #1. please explain to me the issue with your gun being registered like your vehicle.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Pretty simple really.....here in America you just never know who your next President could be. Gotta stay prepared for some crazy bastard like Bloomberg getting elected
For me, I am happy with the executive orders Obama did. The universal background checks are great, gun research can finally be done, schools have option to allow guns on site, and steps to ensure mental help have been taken. Can't argue with that (even though people somehow find a way to do so).
Banning guns and registering weapons is just not an option in this country. America has come too far to do such things anymore. America can't live with or without guns. Change is essentially impossible.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, owning a firearm so I can defend my family is. They have no business in my business.
http://www.chicksontheright.com/posts/i ... eople-vote
some who signed you could tell didn't even want to :crazy: shit
:corn:
had cars been invented at the time of your founding fathers, it would have been ammendment #3, and you all would be screaming and crying every time you got a ticket ("it's my right! I can go as fast as I want to! I'm responsible! Don't punish me for the bad drivers out there!") or if you were told you had to insure it.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Poor rule and evil misdoings became a bit of a sore spot for the masses and many who were subjected to the ideology recognized it for its weakness in serving humanity. They sought change. Of course, there were your fair number of donkeys that opposed change saying things like, "This is the way it has been written and so it shall be!" More than likely... these people benefitted in some capacity and so therefore, they supported the King to serve themselves.
Fortunately, there were leaders and their supporters who never sat idle in the face of injustice. At great risk to themselves, they eventually spit in the face of the Divine Right to Rule and, ignoring the selfish who were 'reluctant to change for progress', a King (Charles I) was beheaded. This was in 1649.
I know, I know... I have illustrated a case for the paranoid faction that insists this form of tyranny is anxious to manifest itself again. This was not my intent. My intent is to illustrate that just because something is... doesn't mean something is right. Change is a necessary element of life. We must continue to be a dynamic and continually evolving species if we ever hope to achieve universal happiness. Ancient documents should not dictate future way of life when they are proven to be ineffective or become antiquated and irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers of the USA would be slapping their foreheads and cursing aloud at the failures of the leaders that followed their existence in allowing a country with such an outstanding beginning to slip into what it has become instead of what it might be. The constitution was a great piece of work, but just like all great pieces of work... it needs a little maintenance to keep its worth.
The most armed country in the world boasts 11,000 gun deaths per year, numerous senseless national tragedies, and people fearing their neighbours. These facts beg some form of consideration. The musket has evolved to weapons of incredible efficiency and levels of deadliness. So too must the constitution. I believe this is the task that is incumbent on the American people and, in my opinion, to deny this is either asinine or self-serving.
Drama much?
You ask me a question, I gave you my answer, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I apologize.
aw, that's a pretty weak attempt to bait me. surely you can do better!
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It is totally asinine and self-serving to suggest removing people's rights
most especially in other people's countries.
I also agree that the founding fathers would be slapping their heads
at those who think they would be slapping their heads for creating our constitution
with the forethought to last hundreds of years for the same reasons it was created so long ago.
I'm sure you'd be getting a great big wtf
than Americans who value their rights.
Some of the assumptions and outrageous insults by people not within our borders
leaves me quite sure we are again at what you can not understand you fear.
You can not understand why we want, need and enjoy our gun rights
whether we choose to own a gun or not.
If you did you would not entertain taking them away. Same goes for our dogs :?
Both are here to stay.
is it hanging by a thread yet?
Then enjoy them and all the sufferings that come with them.
Little pieces of it add support to what I was getting at: donkeys standing in the way of progression.
extremely well put.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/08 ... fs-deputy/
an incredibly pompous view on life and other people.
Again what one can not understand they fear so they must try to make others
just like them. I'm pretty sure that won't be happening. Well not for some of us.
I respect our Constitution, our rights as many do. Our individuality,
our choices. I can choose to own a gun, be prepared in my life, be self reliant
while some will depend on others. It's all about choices. I also choose to own
a most lovely pit bull mix who would protect me at all costs. My beautiful big big love
like no other.
Sweet!
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
Really each country must care for itself, that is the responsibility of it's citizens.
We will see what the majority of our citizens, yours, mine want and expect
in their prospective countries. What we are each comfortable with.
I am hoping it is all about choice. Being an American that is what our country is based on.
It is what I believe in.
Is it so the government knows who has a gun and who doesn't? Can this information
be made public? How did that info get out there for the world to see?
We know the people who are living violent lives, criminals, won't register their guns.
I am more in favor of the local permit laws which already exist.