My second amendment rights

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
They are not going to be infringed upon.

I'm sure everyone's heard by now about the man who mailed ricin to national 'leaders' the other day. That man is going to rightfully be tracked down and thrown in jail for being such a moron. But while I completely disagree with his actions, I understand and sympathize with the motivations that ultimately led to them.

The current administration is clearly trying to sneakily deprive us of our means of defense against tyranny - our arms. and when that happens, you and I are going to be sitting ducks for whatever the government may have in store for us. Let's not kid ourselves, the Congressmen and other politicians in DC don't represent us at all, and it's only a matter of time before the states and the feddies come to blows. When that day comes (and it's coming soon), it's our duty as citizens to protect ourselves, and in so doing purge the evil ways of the entire nation. And my friends, we can't do that without our guns.

The founding fathers foresaw this day when they drew up the constitution, and with god's help (yes, I'm a proud believer, so sue me) they crafted the most beautiful piece of political literature ever to grace the planet. If we turn our backs on any part of that, we are betraying their vision and the divine course of this country. Defend the second amendment, even if you don't like guns peresonally you should own one, because one day democracy may need you.




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Pretty conflicting don't you think? You say they crafted the constitution with god's help and yet they decided to throw in the separation of church and state? Also it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers were secular when it came to religious beliefs.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


I see. You made your opinion very clear, but what if I were to tell you that it's completely and utterly wrong? Just because a pyscho with a gun pulls the trigger on innocents does not mean that the reasons for the second amendment are unsound. If citizens kill other citizens, then you can bet that the citizens themselves are the problem. You can't blame guns - they only kill what they are aimed and fired at. Which should only be aggressors, of course.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ayjay47
reply to post by muse7
 


I see. You made your opinion very clear, but what if I were to tell you that it's completely and utterly wrong? Just because a pyscho with a gun pulls the trigger on innocents does not mean that the reasons for the second amendment are unsound. If citizens kill other citizens, then you can bet that the citizens themselves are the problem. You can't blame guns - they only kill what they are aimed and fired at. Which should only be aggressors, of course.


Guns make it easier in so many ways, and they give opportunities. The easier it's made to carry out and get away with, the more likely it is to happen. The citizens may be violent, and they are to blame, but it's made very easy for them. Homicide rates reflect this.
edit on 3-6-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ayjay47
The current administration is clearly trying to sneakily deprive us of our means of defense against tyranny - our arms.


Proof please.


they crafted the most beautiful piece of political literature ever to grace the planet.


...which required 27 amendments over the next 200 years.




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Ayjay47
reply to post by muse7
 


I see. You made your opinion very clear, but what if I were to tell you that it's completely and utterly wrong? Just because a pyscho with a gun pulls the trigger on innocents does not mean that the reasons for the second amendment are unsound. If citizens kill other citizens, then you can bet that the citizens themselves are the problem. You can't blame guns - they only kill what they are aimed and fired at. Which should only be aggressors, of course.


Guns make it easier in so many ways, and they give opportunities. The easier it's made to carry out and get away with, the more likely it is to happen. The citizens may be violent, and they are to blame, but it's made very easy for them. Homicide rates reflect this.
edit on 3-6-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)


homocide rates where? oh thats right, homocide rates in the most gun controling cities and states... lets pick one... chicago, some of the stricktest gun laws, it leads the nation as the most violent city, this city has a whopping 7.8 percemt of all gun related deaths in the USA. mind you that if just the state of illinois had that rate it would be rediculous...

blame the guns all you want but letting fear guide your life and persuade your intellect into failing is not very becoming...

if you really want to use intellect to approach gun control then by all means do... there is a catch, once you start using facts it all becomes real simple, and sudenly gun control is not near as important as your emotions lead you to believe.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Tyrants death toll

Mao Ze-Dong ...........50 million dead
Adolf Hitler.................10 million dead
Leopold ll....................8 million dead
Stalin..........................5 million
Hideki Tojo .................5 million
Pol Pot........................1.5 million

The list is ALOT longer than this and the numbers are incredible.....I could post more if you would
like to see all the examples of dictators who have disarmed their country's citizens and then executed
them, tortured them. raped them, experimented on them, separated families, forced then into labor
camps, exiled them, gassed them, used biological weapons on them, slaughtered them, dumped them
in mass graves, or just let them starve....

It is an undeniable truth of history that when governments take weapons from its ordinary citizens
sometimes those same governments kill those same citizens.

The amount of people who have died by civilian firearms (while sad) is completely inconsequential
when compared with these tyrant's numbers.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely....A person who fails to learn history will be doomed to repeat it
edit on 3-6-2013 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Ayjay47
The current administration is clearly trying to sneakily deprive us of our means of defense against tyranny - our arms.


Proof please.


they crafted the most beautiful piece of political literature ever to grace the planet.


...which required 27 amendments over the next 200 years.



why do you try to put your 2 cents in on matters which have no bearing on your life? first off they most definately are coming after the guns, check out the number of bills being introduced, including one directing control of powder. research is your friend.

yes the constitution needed a few amendments for human rights, some of the amendments had no place to be made.

i find it most ironic that you think the USA should mind it's own business in many foreign affairs and yet here you are trying to mind the USA's business and you do not even live here...



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Pretty conflicting don't you think? You say they crafted the constitution with god's help and yet they decided to throw in the separation of church and state? Also it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers were secular when it came to religious beliefs.


It's freedom from a State Religion...Ala, the Church Of England, which was still very fresh in the minds of the Founders.

Also.... They were secular, in their personal religion? Where do you get this nonsense?

(Source)

42 accounted for. 42 with religion. The Founders had a variety of religious affiliation and I believe a couple of the bunch really did have neutral affiliation, if it can be put that way. Secular though? Documented Fact? Please document your fact...and lets compare it to this.



Those are the Presidents back to Washington with their Religious affiliation, by name.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


You know, it's a real novel concept these days, with all the excusers and enablers of criminal scumbags and losers ...but we could start treating murder seriously instead of a crime like any other. Rather than..say... 10 or 15 or 25 years? Natural Life without Parole for Murder. Without exception under that charge, and universally. Deterrence might even work a bit too, when the sentence is without question or exception.

I wonder..how your little scoreboard would look if the SAME people didn't get a chance to kill a 2nd and 3rd time in life, after being convicted of violent and predatory crimes numerous times...and even Murder in more cases than a polite society would like to admit to.

If our prisons weren't a combination of gladiator school and a revolving door for predators? We might not see nearly as many dead innocents by homicidal psychopaths. Guns aren't the issue. Human trash is. Taking out the trash as it makes itself known is the answer....not depriving good people of the means of defense against the scum.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ayjay47

The founding fathers foresaw this day when they drew up the constitution, and with god's help (yes, I'm a proud believer, so sue me) they crafted the most beautiful piece of political literature ever to grace the planet. If we turn our backs on any part of that, we are betraying their vision and the divine course of this country. Defend the second amendment, even if you don't like guns peresonally you should own one, because one day democracy may need you.


Americans obsession with this constitution thing, is rather odd to foreigners in other western countries..

so because some guys 100 years ago (is that when it was written?) made all these laws, it doesn't mean they are relevant today... laws change with the times.. why would anyone ever need to own a gun anyway? unless you live on a farm? i get its cultural, and dont mean to offend Americans, as i know this gun issue is a heated one.. who is going to attack you? the Government?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by thewhiteribbon
 

Well, the Constitution isn't about laws. If it were, you're right. The laws from the late 18th century would be laughably outdated. I think most laws they had on the books then had to deal with Sunday Schedules, Horses and equity in farming trade. Not the most relevant things today.

The Constitution is relevant because it was written as broad concepts, values and base line Rights we all have as absolutes and above the removal from this or any other Government force, then or ever again. In that way, it's very relevant.

The Reason Americans have Firearms

^^^ THAT is one of the primary and driving reasons Americans are armed and use them to great effect countless times per year. Preventing what happened there.

Those two animals on two legs didn't shoot them. Oh, it would have been merciful if they had. However, guns likely cost more than those losers had to pony up. So, the women died very VERY hard and the man was left to die. He made it out...but I'll bet, given the details, it's a survival he has mixed feelings about, every day.

I wish I could say violent crime...guns or no guns...like that was rare. It's not. It's becoming more common, if anything. Now, we can stand like fools and beg for mercy from human predators. We can go nose to nose and try and 'duke it out' with people who known violence as a close personal friend and companion, where we general do not as civilized people ...or we can shoot the bastards where they stand, as soon as they become a deadly threat.

I choose to have the tools to shoot them, not beg for my life and that of my family ....to end like that family did. Mercy isn't something often found in or from the criminal mind.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Pretty conflicting don't you think? You say they crafted the constitution with god's help and yet they decided to throw in the separation of church and state? Also it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers were secular when it came to religious beliefs.


That is an outright lie and you know it. I swear, you Liberals/Atheists and your revisionist history. Can't you be honest about anything, or are you just following the example set by your messiah, the Liar-in-Chief and his butt buddy Eric Holder?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
These 2nd amendment threads are the same thing over and over again. Nothing new is discussed.

There should just be one gigantic 2nd amendment thread.
edit on 3-6-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thewhiteribbon
 


while Wrabbit is right, and at the end of the day that is the best reason, for me it is also about annoyance. I like to do what I want to do. I do not harm others, do not enjoy seeing others suffer in any way, and feel empathy that tends to be beyond that of others I know for people who suffer. It is just something I enjoy having and using. My son and I spend a lot of time together at the shooting range on the weekends. Its an activity we do together that is a stress reliever. There are dozens of reasons.

But why should someone else tell me what I can and cannot do? I am an intelligent and reasonable person. I don't intend to harm anyone. It is not likely that my actions will bring harm to anyone, unless I am defending myself. So why should I not be allowed to do what I want?

The gay marriage debate is another one that is in the news lately, and it is similar to this as well. It is a simple question of "Why would you want to decide what another person does?" And if you do, how effective will it be? Are gun crimes committed by people who are using guns that they own legally and have registered in their name?

Gun ownership, in the US, has shown to decrease crime in inverse proportions. So more gun owners = lower crime rates. There are likely other considerations (like envrionmental lead contamination in cities being a driver of violent crime).

Other than "To make someone feel safer", I cannot find a single answer to the question of, "Why should we limit gun ownership?".



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   
it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers fast electric were secular when it came to religious beliefs.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Ayjay47
The current administration is clearly trying to sneakily deprive us of our means of defense against tyranny - our arms.


Proof please.


a little research into current US politics and new bills being brought into America would be all the proof you need. failing that just read the news



Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Ayjay47
they crafted the most beautiful piece of political literature ever to grace the planet.


...which required 27 amendments over the next 200 years.


You mean amendments brought forward from the government who dont like the restrictions placed upon them by the constitution. amendments made by people that the constitution is trying to protect you from.


the government dont want you to have guns and be able to protect yourself...so they have the constitution changed and rely on people like you not to say anything. I can see it without even living there
edit on 4-6-2013 by Silicis n Volvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
homocide rates where? oh thats right, homocide rates in the most gun controling cities and states... lets pick one... chicago, some of the stricktest gun laws, it leads the nation as the most violent city, this city has a whopping 7.8 percemt of all gun related deaths in the USA. mind you that if just the state of illinois had that rate it would be rediculous...


I'll tell you what's rediculous, it's people using that same old tired line of the "strictest gun laws lead to higher gun crime" when this is complete propaganda.

Some states have stricter gun laws IN RESPONSE to the higher gun crime. These are laws enacted to try to deal with the massive crime statistics, it's not a CAUSE of the gun crime. Other states have differing laws, some have worse mental health care services than others, some have higher levels of depression than others, some have greater economic disparity than others...

You cannot make a blanket statement about those states with tougher gun laws having more gun crime, it just isn't that simple. The fact that pro-gun people keep pushing this out there without facing these obvious discrepancies is a joke too.

America will not move on from this any time soon, at least not in the next two or three generations. It's going to take something truly terrible before people will actually start to wake up to this complete and utter insanity.

It doesn't help that IQ levels seem to be so disastrously low, that people cannot even do any basic research or critical thinking for themselves. The NRA pushes out so much rubbish and nonsense, and so many people swallow it without even checking anything too.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
homocide rates where? oh thats right, homocide rates in the most gun controling cities and states... lets pick one... chicago, some of the stricktest gun laws, it leads the nation as the most violent city, this city has a whopping 7.8 percemt of all gun related deaths in the USA. mind you that if just the state of illinois had that rate it would be rediculous...


I'll tell you what's rediculous, it's people using that same old tired line of the "strictest gun laws lead to higher gun crime" when this is complete propaganda.

Some states have stricter gun laws IN RESPONSE to the higher gun crime. These are laws enacted to try to deal with the massive crime statistics, it's not a CAUSE of the gun crime. Other states have differing laws, some have worse mental health care services than others, some have higher levels of depression than others, some have greater economic disparity than others...

You cannot make a blanket statement about those states with tougher gun laws having more gun crime, it just isn't that simple. The fact that pro-gun people keep pushing this out there without facing these obvious discrepancies is a joke too.

America will not move on from this any time soon, at least not in the next two or three generations. It's going to take something truly terrible before people will actually start to wake up to this complete and utter insanity.

It doesn't help that IQ levels seem to be so disastrously low, that people cannot even do any basic research or critical thinking for themselves. The NRA pushes out so much rubbish and nonsense, and so many people swallow it without even checking anything too.


Your assertion that many locations with very strict gun laws have enacted said laws in response to too much gun violence is absolutely correct. As a Wisconsin cop during the 70's, I was privy to a lot things not generally publicized and can tell you that the Windy City was a war zone then and it has only gotten worse.
That being said, let us be truthful and face facts. Has the enactment off and no tolerance enforcement of said laws curbed the violence as intended? I think no sane person can answer that in the affirmative.
Is Chicago a safer place than it was, oh say, in the 70's? Would you deign to answer "yes" to that question? (I certainly would not go for a leisurely evening walk in Chi Town for ANY amount of money, but, hey, who am I?)
Has the death by firearm rate(s) decreased in response to the stricter laws and enforcement? Hmmm...........
It is correct to assert that one should not be simplistic and espouse the notion that strict gun laws CAUSE more violent crime. Time, both past and present, CLEARLY show that one may NOT assert that those same laws PREVENT gun violence either.
So I ask, is it rational, is it logical, for one to pursue ADDITIONAL laws? Or is it the insanity of which you speak?
Therefore, I believe it is pertinent to take critical note of these bastions of strict gun laws. Whether because of, or in spite of, they are the worst of the worst.
And THAT ain't NRA propaganda.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join