maybe it is time for people such as pelosi to wake up to the truth.that the people of any nation which is armed is a fairly safe nation . just ask Switzerland why all people of their nation are required by law to be a member of their armed forces and all people of this nation are armed to protect it, by whom the government of this nation that is who.it is the people of any nation who are their first line of defense ,as they are scattered all over the nation and they would be the first to bear arms as it takes time to mobilize the troops and for their brain dead superiors to send down the orders ,where as on the other hand the people would react first and ask for i.d. later especially if it was not our troops uniforms.i see the pacifists still think that the meek will inherit the world and this is when after all the militaries have been killed of -pipe dreams and falesies are that only a dream.

What is wrong with you people. I own guns...but I CAN READ!!!

Holder was responding to this question...

Asked whether gun rights under the U.S. Constitution complicated the effort, Mr. Holder said, "I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of the efforts we have begun and will expand upon."

He is simply stating that he sees no conflict between the second amendment and ending ILLEGAL GUN TRAFICKING TO DRUG CARTELS IN MEXICO. ... THIS STATEMENT ISN'T ABOUT TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS...UNLESS YOU ARE SELLING THEM TO DRUG CARTELS?????

How did that statement get turned into Holder stating that he would "not let" the 2nd amendment stand in the way of "taking our guns"???

When you joined the NRA did you sign a waiver proclaiming that you would mindlessly gobble up any bit of BS they hand you?

There should be an intelligence test and psychological screening prior to allowing folks to own firearms.

Originally posted by maybereal11
What is wrong with you people. I own guns...but I CAN READ!!!

Holder was responding to this question...

Asked whether gun rights under the U.S. Constitution complicated the effort, Mr. Holder said, "I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of the efforts we have begun and will expand upon."

He is simply stating that he sees no conflict between the second amendment and ending ILLEGAL GUN TRAFICKING TO DRUG CARTELS IN MEXICO. ... THIS STATEMENT ISN'T ABOUT TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS...UNLESS YOU ARE SELLING THEM TO DRUG CARTELS?????

How did that statement get turned into Holder stating that he would "not let" the 2nd amendment stand in the way of "taking our guns"???

When you joined the NRA did you sign a waiver proclaiming that you would mindlessly gobble up any bit of BS they hand you?

There should be an intelligence test and psychological screening prior to allowing folks to own firearms.

Its not simply a matter of reading friend its a matter of being able to translate the vague language. This is just the type of problem, the Mexican problem, that gives these freeks an avenue of approach. Until they learn to speak clearly about what "efforts" and "expand upon" mean exactly and precisely then they get kicked every time they open their mouth.

Did you just fall off the hay wagon or something? Are you listing to everything these people are saying in total? Holder called americans "cowards" a few weeks ago so just for that he gets kicked every time he opens his suck until he apologizes instead of back tracks.

Originally posted by Logarock

Its not simply a matter of reading friend its a matter of being able to translate the vague language. .......

Did you just fall off the hay wagon or something? Are you listing to everything these people are saying in total? Holder called americans "cowards" a few weeks ago so just for that he gets kicked every time he opens his suck until he apologizes instead of back tracks.

First off..."translate the "vague" language" ??

He was asked if the second amendment would restrict the United States ability to disrupt Gun Trafficking to the Drug Cartels in Mexico.

He said no. Do you think he is speaking in code? Or are you just listening to everything through the prism of "they want to take away our guns".

Secondly..With Holder calling Americans "cowards"...you do know he was speaking in the context of discussions about race? That he felt when it came to confronting race issues that Americans were cowards?

It's true! Most average white Americans would rather be thrown into a UFC ring with a minority than to sit down and ask them how they genuinely feel about race relations and discrimination in America. It's a really uncomfortable issue...

but you just say "he called Americans Cowards!" Take the BS somewhere else.

Originally posted by mandroid
.............

Our right is to be able to keep arms and bear them as well. It could be argued (unsuccessfully) that a Bowie knife is an arm and as long as we all get to keep and bear Bowie knives around we have not had out right infringed upon. This isn't my personal belief so save the flames for someone else.

The Second Amendment states "arms" it doesn't specify just one, or just a group of them, hence the rights of having any arms whatsoever should not be infringed upon...

The Second Amendment is not about "bowie knives", it is about all arms, and the rights of citizens to own and bear them.

If you are advocating that the government allowing Americans owning a bowie knife only, and not any other firearm, it does seem to be your own personal belief, and that red herring holds no water whatsoever.

The Second Amendment is not about Americans having the right to own and bear a "Bowie Knife"... It is the right of all Americans to own and bear arms, and the forefathers gave other statements as what they meant by this.

Just because it is your belief that by the government allowing all Americans having a bowie knive only, does not mean they haven't infringed our Second Amendment right, it doesn't make it so... More so when "arms" does not equal "bowie knife"...



[edit on 25-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by maybereal11
What is wrong with you people. I own guns...but I CAN READ!!!

Holder was responding to this question...

Asked whether gun rights under the U.S. Constitution complicated the effort, Mr. Holder said, "I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of the efforts we have begun and will expand upon."

He is simply stating that he sees no conflict between the second amendment and ending ILLEGAL GUN TRAFICKING TO DRUG CARTELS IN MEXICO. ... THIS STATEMENT ISN'T ABOUT TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS...UNLESS YOU ARE SELLING THEM TO DRUG CARTELS?????

How did that statement get turned into Holder stating that he would "not let" the 2nd amendment stand in the way of "taking our guns"???

When you joined the NRA did you sign a waiver proclaiming that you would mindlessly gobble up any bit of BS they hand you?

There should be an intelligence test and psychological screening prior to allowing folks to own firearms.

Obviously you are the one having a problem with understanding what he said...

He stated "he didn't think the second amendment would stand in the way", and perhaps you were under a rock somewhere, but officials from the Obama administration claimed publicly that Americans owning Assault Weapons, which most Americans own only semi automatic weapons, was the reason why Mexican drug lords have fully automatic weapons...

Even if Americans had automatic weapons, the right to own those should not be infringed either, yet it has been.

On that "intelligence, and psychological screening you are talking about'... You are making nothing more than a red herring, and ad hominem attacks because you can't understand the context of the statements the Obama administration have said regarding this issue.

Seriously, learn how to properly make an argument before you start claiming people should be taking psychological, and "intelligence" tests.

[edit on 25-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]