My second amendment rights

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by acuna
reply to post by rival
 

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the second amendment, but there is a problem here in the US when 91% of the electorate agree with gun control in the form of universal background checks and limiting magazine sizes and congress just pretty much ignores it


Respectfully, I think our difference of opinion is between a policy having public support about a general idea vs. the actual legislation purposed to further the goals of said public policy. Let me give you one example in the form of poll question:

1) Are you in favor of new laws to stop sexual assaults that occur between military personnel?

(Dugh "YES" right?) I'd be shocked if I would get less than a 90% yes answers. And of course I can then use this poll to show statistically that a public outcry exists saying that they were in favor of a new law that stops sexual assaults on people in the military. CLEARLY THE PUBLIC DEMANDS ACTION!!! ......Right?!?

Now let's suppose I (as say for the sake of argument am a kooky Congressman who hates the US military personnel) introduce a bill called "Senate Bill 699- Castration of all current male and nullo procedures for all female members of the military / AKA -Let's stop sexual assaults in the military because the polls say we should"

Any guess to what that polling data would say regarding support for that bill now? Sure, the public policy poll numbers would be great and the public would still be "demanding action", but the public approval for the legislation would be garbage and you and I know that.

Specifically to Senator Schumer's gun control bill, just one kooky part of his legislation was to create criminal felonies for "possession" of a non background checked firearm after 7 days. Picture this- If your roommate goes out of town for 7 days and leaves his/her’s gun at home (because you know us gun owners always take all of our guns with us when we go visit Paris, France and stuff right), YOU have to get a background check to keep those guns at the house or else your subject to a felony criminal charge. What if you were unaware that your roommate had a firearm? What if your roommate planned on coming home late on the 6th day but the flight was canceled and police raided the house on day 7+ 1 hour looking for your roommates’ pot but found you in possession of his guns after the 7th day? Felony city baby- Schumer's legislation calls for your to get some pretty stiff jail time.

Not quite a castration, but to a lot of us legal gun owners being convicted of a felony is sort of a similar result. The publics desire to help prevent gun violence was well meaning, Schumer’s gun control bill was just wrong in just about every way possible and that’s why it failed…..




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:28 PM
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.



I think you should read the post again you commented on... what LeaderofProgress was saying is the the CITY of Chicago had a high gun violence rate... not the state of Illinois... and implying that the city's gun violence rate was so high that if you applied it to the whole state it would be ridiculous from a state level aside from the fact that the city percentages are off the chart. It is our right to own firearms, our founding fathers foresaw a need for that right and we have enjoyed it ever since. It simply comes down to the fact that if someone wants to kill another person they will, be it with a gun, a knife, an IED, poison or whatever they feel the want to use. When you take away something like a gun you are empowering criminals who can get them on the black market whenever they want. If guns are taken away its going to open a door for the government to start taking other things away like household cleaners that can be used to areosolize poisons and make deadly gasses, or knives of a certain length. Regular household chemical like chlorine, bleach, ammonia... even things like matchbooks with the red phosphorous strikers. I have never seen ricin for sale but people can easily make it out of caster beans. I would much prefer to poison or stab someone if I had an agenda to kill them than use a gun because guns are too noisy. I find it amusing that you talk about the low IQ levels these days, as if you are referring to those of us who want to protect our rights as being stupid or lacking on a certain level. Well I guess the decline in IQ's is leading people to open up their chemistry sets or use what is readily available at any supermarket or gas station to create alternative ways to kill... oh wait.... that would mean that those individuals in a certain context are not so stupid. The people I find stupid are the ones that try to take away the rights of legal law abiding citizens while sitting up on a high horse and looking down their noses. Just wait until you get mugged or raped and a bunch of unarmed people are standing around watching i for one would have wished that one of them had a gun even if they had bad aim and hit me... the perp is still going to get the hell out of dodge.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


Could you please back up your nonsense with a few links?

...and please dont just link a few left wing bias web articles. I would like to see actual research instead of MSNBC talking points.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

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.


I'm completely pro-gun ownership (and concealed and open carry), so don't get me wrong here, but the only sound correlation which has ever been made - at least the most indicative correlation, with gun violence from Ntion to nation, state to state, and city to city, has been the degree of desparity between the wealthy and the poor. The rich and poor in the US have a huge desparity compared to most other nations. Chicago, NYC, and LA all have vast wealth among part of their populations, and also vast poverty among their respective populations. I don't have a source handy, as this was a radio show where the studies were being discussed. I'm sure parameters could be tweaked to change results to a degree as well, but it seemed very clear that was the #1 determinant. Not wealth alone, poverty alone, degree of restrictions or freedoms, but that one factor, far above all others.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigsun11
it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers [url=http://www.spiritualdiseaseofaddiction.com/[/url] were secular when it came to religious beliefs.


no
they
were
not



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:23 PM
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 not completely accurate. No where in the US Constitution does it mention separation of church and state, the closest reference is in the First Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


That is not a separation of church and state, that is simply stating that the government cannot be a theocracy or prohibit the excersice of a religion or require a religious test for elective office.

The phrase Sereration of church and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association that read "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson's letter was rooted in a writing by Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America, who had written in 1644 of "A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world".

The only other reference that could be remotely connected to a separation of church and state is in the 3rd Clause of Article 6 which states :

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Truthfully while you could say that the founders were secular it would be more accurate to say they were deists or believed in an Omnipotent God that set the universe on its course then stepped back and watched what happened. Some deists believe their god to be the same god as the Judeo-Christian god while others do not.

However there were 2 confirmed Roman Catholic framers and 6 framers that were of differing sects of the Protestant faith. Also the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." which would imply the belief in a god but not necessarily the God of the Judeo-Christian faith.

Also of interest is the fact that several state constitutions do require a religious test for appointment or election to certain state government offices. These states are Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Several of these states also prohibit a person from sitting as a witness on a trial unless they pass the religion test clause and are confirmed as a "believer".

In almost all states, there is a mention of God in the preambles to their constitutions. Only a few do not. New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia do not have preambles. Tennessee's only mentions "Lord" in the context of dates.

I am not posting this because I am religious, I am only wanting to point out that there is no true "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. If I were forced to describe my religious beliefs it would most closely resemble that of the Native American Indians or of the Druidic Celts as I believe we are all spiritual beings and all living things around us are of a spiritual core nature.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787

Originally posted by bigsun11
it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers [url=http://www.spiritualdiseaseofaddiction.com/[/url] were secular when it came to religious beliefs.


no
they
were
not


Do you have any evidence to support your assertion or is this merely your personal opinion?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

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.


Talking about gun "control" anywhere in the US is pointless and means nothing. You can't control guns whilst surrounded by guns. You have to look at other countries where it has and is working.

Fear does not guide my life, I live in a civilized country.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 

I hate to sound racist but if you were to do a demographic study of the perpetrators of gun violence in Chicago (the nation's second largest city) and Washington, DC (the nation's capitol) then you will likely find the following combination: black, young and low or no (reported) income....but you will likely never hear Obama or Holder admit this.
edit on 14-6-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


There are volumes of evidence that our founders were either Christian or Deist (for the most part).



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by IRockTheBox

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?


www.britannica.com...

atheists?...not quite, but, at that point in time, they were pretty damn close...they openly said that religious belief is personal...when you read their writings. and follow up on their own brand of governance, they were radical liberals of their time....our founding fathers wouldn't be able to get one foot in the door of the republican party, they would be called communists in this day and age.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
You will not get new gun control laws till Obama and Holder come clean on the gun walker programs.

Many of the proposed anti gun laws are based on the government selling guns to criminals like in the case of fast and furious type programs.

We still don't know how many fast and furious guns never went to Mexico but went to criminals/felons in the US

So far 42 weapons from fast and furious have been found in the hands of US criminals



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

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.


And one closet muslim.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
1. Guns do not kill people, people do.

2. The second amendment was created to clarify a right that already existed. Secondly, to allow for a civil defense in the event of a tyrannical government that sought to oppress the people.

The founding fathers did not trust government, yet knew that there needed to be one in order to have a people organized for common needs such as trade with other nations, secure boarders, treaties, and the declarations of war and peace.

So they created a weak central government and gave more power to the states respectively. But in 1783 or so they tossed out that form of government and created a slightly stronger one. Then came the federalists who basically destroyed any concept of States having their own sovereignty. Over the years chipping away at personal freedoms we all took for granted.

But unless they can disarm the general populace they won't be able to go all out with total repression and subjugation. So they concoct schemes of how bad those guns are and so on to try to get everyone to comply with their progressive agenda.

Now, we have seen that the Supreme Court is willing to crack a few chinks in the constitution as with the latest DNA goes to the police ruling where they can now make you surrender your unique identity to them. So there is the chance that they will also bend to infringe upon the second amendment as well.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
1. Guns do not kill people, people do.


To people who use this cliché I ask - so then why do you need guns?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by Fromabove
1. Guns do not kill people, people do.


To people who use this cliché I ask - so then why do you need guns?


So that people with guns can't kill me as easily.

I certainly don't buy a gun to protect myself from firearms that are just laying on a table wholly unused. They are inanimate.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by Fromabove
1. Guns do not kill people, people do.


To people who use this cliché I ask - so then why do you need guns?


So that people with guns can't kill me as easily.

I certainly don't buy a gun to protect myself from firearms that are just laying on a table wholly unused. They are inanimate.


Well, by the same token as the original cliché - "guns don't protect people - people do." A gun sitting on the table isn't going to help you much now is it?
edit on 14-6-2013 by TheFlash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


You are right. A gun sitting on the table does me no good. It is why i typically carry a .40 on me. And it does nothing until I do.

I sense that you are trying to prove something. Unsuccessfully.
edit on 14-6-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by TheFlash
 


You are right. A gun sitting on the table does me no good. It is why i typically carry a .40 on me. And it does nothing until I do.


You clearly fail to comprehend the point I am trying to make nor its irony so I will spell it out for you.

You admit that bearing a firearm makes for a much more effective scenario when it comes to self defense, yet you would deny that the fact that when someone is bearing a firearm, by the same token, it makes him a much more effective, lethal killer.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by TheFlash
 


You are right. A gun sitting on the table does me no good. It is why i typically carry a .40 on me. And it does nothing until I do.


You clearly fail to comprehend the point I am trying to make nor its irony so I will spell it out for you.

You admit that bearing a firearm makes for a much more effective scenario when it comes to self defense, yet you would deny that the fact that when someone is bearing a firearm, by the same token, it makes him a much more effective, lethal killer.


I don't deny that at all. You apparently miss the irony in the statement that "guns don't kill people, people kill people"....take away the guns and people are still going to kill each other. Matter of fact, make them illegal and folks will still make them at home. It isn't difficult to do.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join