CNN to host Obama town hall on guns in America

a reply to: uncommitted

You have got to be joking.

Yet again, you also don't have a clue.

The 2nd Amendment does not GRANT a right to bear arms. The Constitution does not grant Rights. Ratification does not mean crap in this.
The fact, now stay with me as facts seem to be absent within the Anti-2nd crowd, the fact that Prohibition had to be placed by following the guidelines and rules set forth, and then an Amendment had to be enacted to repel it is the standing ground of the process and the intent.
Prohibition remove the US Citizen's lawful ability to consume/have/make alcohol. It isn't even a Right defined within OUR documents, like the 2nd. The Fed Govt knew it had to adhere to the Constitution and BoR in order to get it enacted. Then....see this is where it gets AWESOME....the Govt had to AMEND the Constitution to change the law.

All that for a action that is not outlined within the founding documents.

If the Fed Govt wants to "infringe" upon the Right as outlined by the 2nd, not granted, then the process is to AMEND the Constitution.

NOT by policy, fiat governance, Govt Agency rule setting or anything else.

ALL the anti-2nd people know this doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to pass, so.............instead of abiding by the law, they redefine words, have Progressive activist Judges reinterpret the laws and WHAM..we have a requirement to obtain a license, which is fee driven and is in fact an infringement, to carry a firearm concealed.

States don't have lawful authority to make laws that go against what is outlined in the Constitution/BoR. The Fed Govt also can't do this.


But....you already knew that right? Isn't that what the results of your google'ing brought you?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think Niagara Falls might present an issue with the Eisenhower parking in Lake Michigan... Just sayin'.

Though they could use this...



Big ol' ship.

a reply to: seagull

Screw it, send one of these:

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Yes, because actually adhering to OUR Constitution will auto-magically propel US into the 3rd world status. Clearly you don't have a single clue.

If everyone had the "right to bear arms" without any restrictions whatsoever (which you seem to be advocating) in the 21st century, then the US would obviously become one big dangerous war zone. What rational person couldn't recognize this reality?

It isn't "fundamentalism", its "Constitutional". But, I don't expect foreigners to understand it.

Or just maybe most so called "foreigners" understand the situation far better, since mentally disturbed people randomly massacring young children and 30,000 gun deaths a year is not normal in 1st world countries outside of the US.

So, how often do you walk into your neighbors house and tell them how to live? Just wondering.

I wouldn't walk into anyone's house and tell them how to live... But if the topic was raised on a international open forum, then I would most definitely express my opinion, if I felt so inclined.

What I find odd is how you claim to be so passionate about upholding the constitution, yet get so personally offended when a person expresses there freedom of speech. Or do you think only Americans have the right of freedom of speech?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
What I find odd is how you claim to be so passionate about upholding the constitution, yet get so personally offended when a person expresses there freedom of speech. Or do you think only Americans have the right of freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech in the United States Constitution has nothing to do with peer to peer conversations.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Quick question...

What does acting like mature adults concerning guns entail exactly?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Liberals see CNN as pretty neutral.

As someone in the middle I see them as left-leaning. Not as much as Fox leans right but it is noticeable.

MSNBC ---- CNN ---- FOX ---- OAN

That's the spectrum I see from "left wing" to "right wing" with cable TV news.

EDIT: And the "left" (liberal) news networks like MSNBC are a lot easier on the "right" (conservative) people than FOX is on liberals...FOX just out rights eviscerates them lol.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think someone needs to start LNN (Libertarian News Network).

All the rules are out the window and he is trying to make the best of the situation and you are making jokes about it? He is actually trying to save American lives and all you are interested in is your rights?

Sickening no it's repulsive how low so called humans can go

a reply to: Anansi

Are you saying that you don't believe in rights?

That is sickening.

a reply to: seagull

-Not strawman purchasing for someone

-Keeping your guns locked up and out of the reach of children

-Reporting shady FLL dealers when you buy from, and have a questionable experience

-Reporting stolen firearms promptly

-Taking gun safety classes and learning how to properly take down/strip/clean/use a gun safely

-reporting gun shops that don't seem to follow the law

The above are things gun owners should be doing right now anyway. Part of that maturity is that Americans rush to guns to solve their problems. Look at America's history, we "won the west" at the end of a barrel. We won our independence with muskets. We tamed frontiers and won WWII with guns.

Look at our movies and our culture, guns are used to make us feel safer. Guns appear as more than just something to keep a boogyman from raping us, guns are something that give us power. We feel as if WE are in control of a situation if we're the one with the gun.

We're a powerless people today, and some think walking around with a gun somehow gives them back that personal power. We look around and see our votes don't matter. Corporations do whatever the hell they want. The poor are getting poorer, the rich richer -- and there's not a damned thing any of us can do about it. Criminals get away with everything, and yet the law abiding citizen is taken for a ride on a daily basis. Owning a gun is way to emotionally and mental recapture some sense of power in life.

That, right there is an irresponsible reason to own a gun. The same things I mentioned above happen in Canada, the UK, France, Austrailia, NZ -- and yet those people don't feel the need to arm themselves to make up for some kind of inferiority complex and sense of powerlessness.

Disagree all you want, denial is strong about this -- but the stronger people react in denial the more I know I've hit an exposed nerve of the truth...

originally posted by: Anansi
All the rules are out the window and he is trying to make the best of the situation and you are making jokes about it? He is actually trying to save American lives and all you are interested in is your rights?

Sickening no it's repulsive how low so called humans can go

Bu Bu But

All the laws and rules and regulations have failed for decades.

a reply to: thesaneone

I'll change it, why do you have rights?

a reply to: xuenchen

Did they fail cause they were bad or did people disregard them?

a reply to: Anansi

Answer my question first, do you believe in rights?

a reply to: thesaneone

I believe in rights when you understand your obligations, otherwise no.. Now ,why do you have rights?

a reply to: Anansi

So yes and no okay thanks for that non answer.

According to my constitution i was born with rights but according to me and many others everyone is born with rights.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: uncommitted

You have got to be joking.

Yet again, you also don't have a clue.

The 2nd Amendment does not GRANT a right to bear arms. The Constitution does not grant Rights. Ratification does not mean crap in this.
The fact, now stay with me as facts seem to be absent within the Anti-2nd crowd, the fact that Prohibition had to be placed by following the guidelines and rules set forth, and then an Amendment had to be enacted to repel it is the standing ground of the process and the intent.
Prohibition remove the US Citizen's lawful ability to consume/have/make alcohol. It isn't even a Right defined within OUR documents, like the 2nd. The Fed Govt knew it had to adhere to the Constitution and BoR in order to get it enacted. Then....see this is where it gets AWESOME....the Govt had to AMEND the Constitution to change the law.

All that for a action that is not outlined within the founding documents.

If the Fed Govt wants to "infringe" upon the Right as outlined by the 2nd, not granted, then the process is to AMEND the Constitution.

NOT by policy, fiat governance, Govt Agency rule setting or anything else.

ALL the anti-2nd people know this doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to pass, so.............instead of abiding by the law, they redefine words, have Progressive activist Judges reinterpret the laws and WHAM..we have a requirement to obtain a license, which is fee driven and is in fact an infringement, to carry a firearm concealed.

States don't have lawful authority to make laws that go against what is outlined in the Constitution/BoR. The Fed Govt also can't do this.


But....you already knew that right? Isn't that what the results of your google'ing brought you?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

That is your second amendment, the original text - does it grant? Well, yes it does by not removing it and more specifically by making the use of arms more detailed. I'm sure you may want to dwell on that and what it means before making another comment that adds nothing, but that is up to you. And that is all it says. No carry and conceal, no word of not restricting based on safety issues, no word on weirdo's who want to basically take on a state with their arsenal. Thank you.

By the way, Who is anti second? The question is, who is thinking the NRA version of the 2nd is the intended one, or that a document written in the 18th century is the best one in the 21st century?

a reply to: thesaneone

Why do you have rights? You think it's a god given gift? You were born with it? Are you referring to the UN laws, I think you need to read through all of them, there is more than just " you " on that piece of paper. Or you mean that you can take part in those rights but still do not have to oblige under international law?

Something is missing isn't it?

All great nations crumble within a span off 300 years, you decide if it's a peaceful one or not..

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa


If everyone had the "right to bear arms" without any restrictions whatsoever (which you seem to be advocating) in the 21st century, then the US would obviously become one big dangerous war zone. What rational person couldn't recognize this reality?

So you like the what if game I see. My kids like that as well.
But, since there is not one piece of proof for such things, seeing that firearm ownership in the US was basically unrestricted until 1968, and we weren't descending into 3rd world chaos is about as concrete proof that your theory is BS as it gets.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Or just maybe most so called "foreigners" understand the situation far better, since mentally disturbed people randomly massacring young children and 30,000 gun deaths a year is not normal in 1st world countries outside of the US.

Yep, because outsiders ALWAYS know what's best for everyone else.
Hey, what's the count on robberies and home invasions in AUS again? What about assaults with deadly weapons like knives?
Oh, and just love your stats there. I bet you glossed over the little fact that that number is about a corrupt as the 0bama admin? That stat includes gang on gang crime and suicides.
Soo....

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

I wouldn't walk into anyone's house and tell them how to live... But if the topic was raised on a international open forum, then I would most definitely express my opinion, if I felt so inclined.

Oh, so nothing face to face then, so long as you have the keyboard and screen to protect you.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
What I find odd is how you claim to be so passionate about upholding the constitution, yet get so personally offended when a person expresses there freedom of speech. Or do you think only Americans have the right of freedom of speech?

Yeah, so at what point does MY Constitutional rights extend to a foreigner on the internet?
Should we bring democracy to your home country as well?