No ma'am, I won't register my guns

OnTheEdge

:wtf: :crazy: :wtf: :crazy: :wtf: :crazy:

http://www.chicksontheright.com/posts/i ... eople-vote

pandora

:wtf: is right ... unbelievable I laughed but it was so sad after awhile
some who signed you could tell didn't even want to :crazy: shit

Jason P

unsung wrote:

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.

A nationwide ban on handguns? If Richard Nixon banned handguns when he was prez, better or worse right now in Chicago?

:corn:

Hugh Freaking Dillon

unsung wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

unsung wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

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.

unsung

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

ajedigecko

they did have 'cars', at the time.........labeled horses.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

unsung wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

pandora

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

pandora

One thing is coming true they are chomping at our constitution ...
is it hanging by a thread yet?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

By the way. Pandora, review your response to mine. It makes no sense.

Little pieces of it add support to what I was getting at: donkeys standing in the way of progression.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

dignin

4-year-old grabs loaded gun at family BBQ and accidentally kills wife of Tennessee sheriff’s deputy


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/08 ... fs-deputy/

pandora

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.

PJ_Soul

I don't see how registering your guns goes against any constitutional right at all.

even flow - question mark

dignin wrote:

4-year-old grabs loaded gun at family BBQ and accidentally kills wife of Tennessee sheriff’s deputy


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/08 ... fs-deputy/

Sweet!

pandora

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

pandora

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.

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

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.