Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly launch (unconscionable) battle against gun lobby

reply to post by CosmicEgg

How will we be able to go anywhere or do anything if everyone is armed? It's an absolutely preposterous idea on every possible level.

You can't possibly be that dense can you? How old are you, lots of people have been armed for well over a hundred years in the United States, Your acting like the gun was just invented.!! Unless I am just getting really tired tonight and not understanding your response right?

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with her right to free speech. Do you even know what you're talking about?

And the fact that this woman is a pretty good example of why guns should be not just limited but completely removed from the face of the Earth means she has more right to comment than the rest of us. Direct experience is the difference.

Guns are for idiots with no better idea of how to handle life. Gun carriers live pathetic lives filled with fear and paranoia. If your life is in mortal danger without a gun in your hand, you might as well just hang it up because that's no life.

Guns are for the ugly.

Do you have a clue?
The 2nd Amendment is there to defend all of the other Amendments including the first.
Wake up.

reply to post by RedmoonMWC


No, the second amendment is there to establish an American military and quickly became obsolete once the national guard was formed and the country established a standing army.

The second amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on anymore.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

 

No, the second amendment is there to establish an American military and quickly became obsolete once the national guard was formed and the country established a standing army.

The second amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on anymore.

How do you come to this conclusion??? So now that women have the right to vote is the 19th amendment is obsolete?? What about the 13th which did away with slavery?? There's reason it's there and it's not so they could establish an American military.............

Interesting how she has forgave the gunman, but condemn the gun....

I wonder if the same guy hit her in the head with a bat would she still forgive him, but condemn the bat?

all lobbies should be fought against

they own our elected officials

you are supporting that ?

weird

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

 

No, the second amendment is there to establish an American military and quickly became obsolete once the national guard was formed and the country established a standing army.

The second amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on anymore.

That statement is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

Second Amendment

"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."

Please tell me how you got "the second amendment is there to establish an American military"??? In fact, prior to the US Constitution, States framed their own constitution and were strongly AGAINST the formation of a standing army, favoring militias. It is for that purpose that the 2nd amendment was put into the Bill of Rights. To protect against that very thing, a standing US Army. They wanted to grant the citizens a way of protecting themselves from the military and government, just as they had done against England.

As usual Bloomberg and anti guns cohorts, nothing but traitors to the constitution and behind agendas has drafter Gifford for their campaign, I guess like everything in America money talks and BS walk and Gifford is not exempt of the temptations, screw America, gun owners and second amendment.

Nothing but traitors.

I've been saying it for years. Ban insanity, not guns.

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Please tell me how you got "the second amendment is there to establish an American military"??? In fact, prior to the US Constitution, States framed their own constitution and were strongly AGAINST the formation of a standing army, favoring militias. It is for that purpose that the 2nd amendment was put into the Bill of Rights. To protect against that very thing, a standing US Army. They wanted to grant the citizens a way of protecting themselves from the military and government, just as they had done against England.

Look at where it's gotten us! The federal government has taken hold of the national guard, which replaced the need for state militias, we have had a standing army for well over a century and we've even gone so far as to place that standing military in other nations to 'keep them and their neighbors in line.'

When criminals and dangerous minds so easily obtain weapons of mass devastation the NRA waves the constitution around as if they're impenetrable to the inevitable call for scaling back in the availability of firearms. It's BS. The constitution was great for it's time but this is my country now, not Jefferson's and not Washington's. If we're so empowered by their ideas to pave our way and form, as Lincoln put it, 'a more perfect union,' then we should have the option of discussing what is no longer needed..that includes the second amendment.

The supreme court did this nation a terrible disservice four years ago by establishing the second to pertain to individuals.

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Please tell me how you got "the second amendment is there to establish an American military"??? In fact, prior to the US Constitution, States framed their own constitution and were strongly AGAINST the formation of a standing army, favoring militias. It is for that purpose that the 2nd amendment was put into the Bill of Rights. To protect against that very thing, a standing US Army. They wanted to grant the citizens a way of protecting themselves from the military and government, just as they had done against England.

Look at where it's gotten us! The federal government has taken hold of the national guard, which replaced the need for state militias, we have had a standing army for well over a century and we've even gone so far as to place that standing military in other nations to 'keep them and their neighbors in line.'

When criminals and dangerous minds so easily obtain weapons of mass devastation the NRA waves the constitution around as if they're impenetrable to the inevitable call for scaling back in the availability of firearms. It's BS. The constitution was great for it's time but this is my country now, not Jefferson's and not Washington's. If we're so empowered by their ideas to pave our way and form, as Lincoln put it, 'a more perfect union,' then we should have the option of discussing what is no longer needed..that includes the second amendment.

The supreme court did this nation a terrible disservice four years ago by establishing the second to pertain to individuals.

You do realize that each state still has and maintains it's own national guard right???

what weapons of "mass devastation" do "criminals and dangerous minds" obtain exactly?

I also don't understand how you think the Supreme Court did us a disservice by saying that individuals have the right to bear arms??

Overall I don't see how your above comment made any sense at all?? Maybe I'm just missing something but I don't get it......

youtu.be...

There are those who feel like the Marine in the Video and there are those who say burn-em.

I honestly do wonder if TBTB pass something what will happen? Last time in 1994 nothing except some feel good legislation. Even back then there was some serious chest thumping but the world continued to turn and law abiding citizens made do with what was legal; thus they were law abiding.....While the crooks and law breakers continued on as before.

It does seem the country is more polarized now than in the past on many different topics so the atmosphere may not be the same as it was in 1994...we will see.

The comment about Guatemala and armed guards....Guatemala is a Narco state. Judges, politicians, are either bought, intimidated or killed.

[QUOTE]
GUATEMALA CITY | Wed Jan 2, 2013 12:49pm EST

(Reuters) - Homicides in Guatemala, which has one of the world's highest murder rates, fell in 2012 for a third year as authorities ramped up their battle against Mexican drug cartels and other organized criminals, the security ministry said on Wednesday.

The Central American nation of nearly 15 million people registered 5,174 murders in 2012, an 8.9 percent drop from 2011.

"We have improved coordination between the state prosecutor's office and the police ... and we have a new school with more advanced training for officers," Vice-Minister of Security Arkel Benitez told Reuters.

Guatemala has been battling a wave of violent crime for over a decade, with homicides peaking at 6,498 in 2009, giving the country one of the world's highest per capita murder rates, according to the United Nations.

Powerful Mexican drug cartels battling for territory to ship South American coc aine to the United States have spread their brutal tactics to Guatemala, contributing to high crime rates.

Youth street gangs known as 'Maras' also extort money from residents and businesses, often killing those who don't pay. [END QUOTE]

narcosphere.narconews.com...

Confronted by the threat from three narco-trafficking groups, including recently arrived "Zetas" from Mexico, the local Rule of Law (ROL) apparatus in the [Guatemalan] northern city of Coban [Guatemala] is no longer capable of dealing with the most serious kinds of crime. What is happening there is typical of many rural areas of Guatemala. Sources tell us that Coban's police are corrupt and allied with traffickers, and sometimes even provide them escort. Some judges and prosecutors are too frightened to do their jobs properly; others are in league with the traffickers.

Ban the guns in America and let the Cartels move north and you are looking at a possible American future. Maybe, maybe not you say only because you are not a rancher along the border. . Sometimes a law made for someone in N.Y. does not fit in some of the border states regardless of what D.C. says.....just my opinion.

Originally posted by RN311
You do realize that each state still has and maintains it's own national guard right???

No need for a well regulated militia, thus no need for an individual right to bear arms.

what weapons of "mass devastation" do "criminals and dangerous minds" obtain exactly?

I dunno, James Holmes managed to fire 27 rounds in less than thirty seconds in a crowded theater. He seems like a dangerous person that caused mass devastation. He bought all his weapons and ammunition and body armor legally. Gabrielle Giffords was shot with a high capacity glock that was bought legally. How many legal guns get used illegally every year?

I also don't understand how you think the Supreme Court did us a disservice by saying that individuals have the right to bear arms??

Until 2008 it wasn't settled law that individuals had the right to bear arms. Just that it was a right 'of the people,' when the NRA became a lobbying organization in the 1970's instead of the gun club that it had been since its inception. They swayed public opinion with this made up notion that nearly every person in this thread has so dutifully repeated. You were never intended to have the 'right' to bear arms and even if you were, it's not applicable in modern times as more and more nations have realized and surpassed the United States in both safety and general well being.

Overall I don't see how your above comment made any sense at all?? Maybe I'm just missing something but I don't get it......

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Tyring to change the Constitution is not Unconstitutional.

In fact, it is one of the most Constitutional things one can do.

Originally posted by links234
Look at where it's gotten us! The federal government has taken hold of the national guard, which replaced the need for state militias, we have had a standing army for well over a century and we've even gone so far as to place that standing military in other nations to 'keep them and their neighbors in line.'

I'm not following your "look at where it's gotten us" mentality. The 2nd amendment has not caused crime, nor has it forced criminals to decide to use firearms. I mean, lets be honest. Look at where the "War on Drugs" has gotten us. Criminals don't go out, legally buy a gun and then commit a crime. In NYC, you can buy a hand gun for like $30 on the street. Why? Because crack heads go and rob homes and steal them from legal gun owners.

And as for the National Guard, states control the National Guard, which is unto itself a "Militia" as per the Militia Act of 1903. You may be confused, because there is also a "National Guard of the United States" which is federally controlled. And where we place our Military has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

Originally posted by links234
When criminals and dangerous minds so easily obtain weapons of mass devastation the NRA waves the constitution around as if they're impenetrable to the inevitable call for scaling back in the availability of firearms. It's BS. The constitution was great for it's time but this is my country now, not Jefferson's and not Washington's. If we're so empowered by their ideas to pave our way and form, as Lincoln put it, 'a more perfect union,' then we should have the option of discussing what is no longer needed..that includes the second amendment.

Right... and facts show that most if not ALL of the mass murders done lately were by people under the influence of SSRI's. So by that logic, ALL anti-depressants and SSRI's should be banned too. The NRA is there because they want to protect the rights of gun owners.

But with that being said, the NRA doesn't speak for everyone. That is like saying "Jessie Jackson represents all black people in this country". The constitution is what this country was founded on. So that people like you couldn't just come around and say "hey this is no good lets do away with it." It may be "your country now" but it is mine too. And my sons.

And according to the Bill of Rights, I have the right to own firearms. No amount of pissing and moaning by special interest groups and citizens up in DC are going to make a difference in that.

Statistically speaking, what difference did the previous ban on "assault rifles" manage to accomplish? Did crime go down? No... it didn't. Do you really think that banning "big scary assault rifles" and clips bigger than 10 rounds are going to make a difference? Guess what... just like drugs, if you want it, your gonna get it. No matter what. And you know who usually goes THAT route? Not the law abiding citizens, the criminals do. So any "ban" on guns and clips will affect no one except the law abiding people who wish to, and have a legal right to own weapons.

Originally posted by links234
The supreme court did this nation a terrible disservice four years ago by establishing the second to pertain to individuals.

All they did was uphold what was already written. The only disservice they did regarding "individuals" was declare corporations to be such.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

 

No, the second amendment is there to establish an American military and quickly became obsolete once the national guard was formed and the country established a standing army.

The second amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on anymore.

how can you debate this when you have no clue to what the second amendment says?

Just a broad question to pose, but. . . .

Many folks who are against the 2nd Amendment feel that it is outdated and that government should be the sole authority when it comes to personal safety and protection.

Would they feel the same way if there was a conservative government in office?

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
go ahead and try to purchase enough fertilizer to make an ammonium nitrate bomb. you are immediately placed on a watch list, and will probably be talking to someone from DHS within a few weeks.

I buy ammonium nitrate all the time in large quantities - sometimes in liquid form (ideal for bomb making BTW as I was a Special Forces Engineer I know how it is done as well) sometimes in granules sometimes as a mix etc. I get 1000 gallons for my fields. I have never been visited by anyone from DHS or even the Extension office.

I suppose if I were an 18 year old college student from Detroit I might set off some red lights or buzzers but farmers buy these and other things like tnt all the time.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
So this woman is shot in the head and almost killed, and you want to deny her the right to be against guns?

She can be against/for whatever she wishes; the problem is she is capitalizing on her prior status as an elected official to insist that her point of view is somehow more valid than that of any other. She is exploiting her celebrity to collect money to buy influence - that is where she is wrong.

Originally posted by phishyblankwatersUntil you take a slug to the skull, i think you should just not say a damn word about this woman and her goals.

Been shot twice actually once in the calf and once (thankfully) in a ceramic plate on a military vest. If I was trustworthy enough to carry an assault rifle "for" America and do Mrs. Giffords bidding as an elected representative, I am trustworthy enough to own one "in" America.

Sorry some ass hat shot her. He didn't use an assault weapon btw. He used a pistol. He was bat # crazy...

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
Something here is unconscionable, but it's not Giffords

If you think using one's celebrity status to get money to buy influence that the average citizen can not to relate their opinion and create a movement is ok - that is your right. Me, I think her opinion is valid but no more valid than that of any other private citizen.

In fact her status as a victim makes me question her motive, is it anger, revenge, hate, resentment at a future lost or is it based on logic and genuine concern?

When people are wronged, or even perceive themselves wronged they can and do act irrationally.

reply to post by RedmoonMWC


I don't think you understand the fundamental concept of Cause and Effect.

Think. It will take you a little longer, but go ahead and give it a go. See where it takes you.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with her right to free speech. Do you even know what you're talking about?

And the fact that this woman is a pretty good example of why guns should be not just limited but completely removed from the face of the Earth means she has more right to comment than the rest of us. Direct experience is the difference.
Guns are for idiots with no better idea of how to handle life. Gun carriers live pathetic lives filled with fear and paranoia. If your life is in mortal danger without a gun in your hand, you might as well just hang it up because that's no life.

Guns are for the ugly.

No, they are for those of us who don't go through life with rose colored glasses. We know the streets aren't safe. We know there are many out there would cut your throat for $20. Crack heads, meth heads, heroin addicts that will get their next fix over your dead body. Literally. "Don't know how to handle life" Really? Ever had a gun in your face? Ever been the victim of a violent crime? Ever been beaten just because a bunch of teens were bored? My guess is no. Just because you live a nice safe life, thanks to the cops With Guns, don't think everyone else does. It's not living in fear, it's living in reality.