And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The ones they're most likely to determine are mentally ill currently are vets. Seems to be a problem.

It places society in a quandary.

Certainly on the one hand, you'd like to keep guns away from hardened criminals, not the one who smoked something when he was 18, And truly dangerous mentally ill, but that is not what they're doing and everyone knows it.

Every person in this society has the right to defend themselves, particularly against potential fascism and door to door armies. And worse.

It is in the opinion of some that they are waiting for or planning events where civil chaos would entail and that some are ready to go door to door with machetes, axes and the like. Being armed is the only thing that could save a family from a horrendous murder.

So...this isn't a game.

They don't have the right to deny people basic self defense against rogue armies or rogue civilians.




posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
And as for building a weapon, think that is going to be a project, because I had a dream showing rogue groups murdering people in a mall/resort, no one could do anything. You had to be armed to do anything. People were trying to use chairs against them, but they outreached them and seemed prepared as a hard core group of guerrilla types with cutting weapons.

Just before they got to us, I said, no don't see any point in just dying in this dream for no reason, and then a guide spoke up and said, this is what its like in real life without weapons to defend yourself.

So, this issue is quite important. I believe the right to self defense is instrinsic in a society. And that their determination of who can and cannot had better not be based on: income and who can afford registration, scarsity of weapons and ammo, mental illness, whereas they classify everything as mental illness, whereas it should only be for dangerous people, who are proven and known to be dangerous.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

beezzer

intrepid
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Uh huh and what about delusional people making weapons in their houses? I've been following this arms BS for the whole thing. The gun crowd says it's mental health issues. But by your definition you can't touch the sick. IT'S YOUR RIGHT. Can't have it both ways man.



How many delusional people have been making weapons in their houses?

Names?


I think this is in response to these guys making a real colt 45 from a 3D printer...welcome to the future...hehe









edit on 28-11-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


(post by infolurker removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by colddeadhands
 


OK, so do what then? Nothing? And if you just happen to be killed, "Tough luck, dude"?



"Doing something" hasn't shown to be effective at all, just look at the results (or lack of results) of the AWB. Gun murders have fallen by 50% over the last 2 decades anyway, with no increase in gun control. So it looks like "doing nothing" is effective after all. I know how disappointed you must be.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   


The second is probably the safest part of the Constitution because of recent Court rulings. Its basically untouchable now without the Court reversing a decision.
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


I never thought I'd see the day when American citizens could be executed or indefinitely detained by their President without due process, yet here we are. (thx NDAA)

As for the second being safe....tell that to the folks who were forcibly disarmed after Katrina. They will keep trying...of that you can be sure.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


this part here:



When a law abiding citizen can not arm himself legally, yet a criminal can and will illegally, we the law abiding citizens loose both security and liberty.


is very quotable.
hope you don't mind that i use it.
its short but gets to the meat of the issue nicely.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



One has to understand at-least in theory what freedom is to understand why this would be a problem. Here's the deal, A lot of people hate firearms due to fear and ignorance, and please don't take that as an insult to those who don't understand the definition of ignorance. Those who hate guns and or are not American have a hard time grasping why it is the right to keep and bear arms is of great importance. First one has to understand that freedom in essence is the right to property, property being oneself as we'll as the posessions in which one has. When the right to property is restricted so is freedom. Firearms are property, in a free society property can and should be transferred from person to person without government interference. What individuals in a free society do with said property is of their own consequence.

Think about this, felons are not allowed to own firearms, the reason being is that they broke the law... Now let me restate this for the hard headed, THEY BROKE THE LAW. A law that prohibits them from doing (insert crime here). Now out of curiosity, lets say a felon makes his own firearm, and is now in possession of a prohibited item. Do you really believe they are going to pay any attention to the law that says they have to run a background on themselves or register the firearm that will draw attention to their crime and put them behind bars again? I mean I'm being completely honest here, what exactly are you all thinking here that makes any sense what so ever?


Bottom line here is that this would only affect those who follow the laws, you know the people who you know aren't criminals and aren't the ones you all fear of having possession of the weapons of mass murder that kills kids and baby unicorns.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 


eh all blaming the mentally ill has done in the past year or so is drive the ones that want guns so far out of treatment for fear of loosing a constitutional right so all its going to do is decrease chances of actualy stopping or preventing any one that therapy or drs could have helped.

the mentally ill can be a jumpy bunch lump in fat helpings of stigma and they go to ground.how do you find the mentally ill if people wont seek treatment out of fear, hell i know a few family's that dont even believe it exists

and you cant get a "list of them" due to hipaa requirements at least how the law stands now
(not directed at person im replying to just as a general comment)
furthermore just being mentally ill is not grounds on its self for disqualification of firearms ownership,you have to have been adjudicated mentally defective. which is not as easy as people think and with certain processes be reversed

bipolar.about.com... good read on the matter

www.nami.org... link on stigma from nami(pdf)



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

intrepid
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Uh huh and what about delusional people making weapons in their houses? I've been following this arms BS for the whole thing. The gun crowd says it's mental health issues. But by your definition you can't touch the sick. IT'S YOUR RIGHT. Can't have it both ways man.



YES I CAN have it both ways That's called freedom! Anything else is called Tyranny and out of control government but Hey you just keep watching Miley twerk and don't worry about what the man behind the curtain is doing...





posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by agentscoly
 


I do believe I read an article that some of the most brilliant minds of the 2oth and 21st century by today's standards would be considered mentally ill.

With that being said if you consider this whole mental illness thing a tool everyone could be misconstrued as mentally unstable.

All and all If everything we do is a crime and everyone is a criminal then what do we do?


WTF



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Tell me how you control guns WITH checks?

Those who believe enacting laws to prevent gun violence, i.e., "illegal behavior" with guns, are either intellectually dishonest, stupid, or have another, potentially "nefarious", agenda altogether.

Only those already disinclined to commit crime are restricted or restrained by gun laws.

Those willing to commit gun violence, already get a "freebee". Murder is ALREADY illegal, and being willing to use a gun in the commission of a crime suggests a willingness to commit murder... which is punishable by death or life in prison. If THAT isn't a sufficient incentive to not break the law, more laws sure as hell won't improve things. How hard is this to understand?

Using boolean logic, to arrive at a demonstrable reason to illicit a false reason for gun control, you can only end up at one place. "Authorities" do not want an armed public around. THEY see them as a threat to criminals.

There is only one reason that would concern them... and that would be, by definition, that they are in fear about the publics reaction to what they are really doing, because THEY are engaged in criminal behavior.

Those who support "authorities" who want gun control, actually ARE either stupid, or have very poor or underdeveloped critical thinking skills.

"Politicians Prefer Un-armed Peasants"



reply to post by intrepid
 


edit on 29-11-2013 by dasman888 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2013 by dasman888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Looks like it's HAMMA time again.

(that was MY ham-handed segue, unlike yours however, mine is not directed at anyone in a juvenile manner)

I have read your posts, and as I suspected you would, you slowly degenerated into the place where all leftists, liberals, and proponents of government control for imagined "safety" ALWAYS go:

Hypothetical-land.

The residents of this land are a strange people. They physically occupy THIS world, but they mentally live in another place, a place where they think that hopes and dreams constitute reality, where "but what if" is mistaken as a logical argument, and snappy, flashy comebacks are mistaken as debate skills. Many have suggested that these people are stuck forever in high school mentally, as that is what their behavior indicates.

However, the residents of hypothetical land have a curious ability, akin to mental dual citizenship: they actually believe that the "what if" brand of non-logic and the utter LACK of causality should influence the way that affairs are conducted in THIS world, where "what if" is right up there with a five year old playing the "why"game and means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING insofar as problem prevention and solving, and is absolutely LUDICROUS when something as random as either people or REAL LIFE are introduced into the mix.

Being an emotional-based reactionary is not going to bring back the dead, but in reality, I don't believe that you give one single damn about the dead. They are a tool to you, and I am not sure an instrument exists that would be able to measure the amount of a nanosecond that it took for you to start callously using the loss of life to further your own argument, such as it is. You are only slightly better than obama, with his fake tears, and the speed with which he figuratively started waving around the bodies of children, in effect the entire farce was "Look at all these dead children! HOW DARE YOU say you have the right to own guns to these grieving parents!?"

Well I will say it: YOUR DEAD DO NOT TRUMP MY RIGHTS. I REFUSE TO ALLOW ANYONE TO ATTEMPT TO INFRINGE UPON MY RIGHTS TO FREEDOM AND LIBERTY BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF A MANIAC.

And yes, I will say it to one of the parent's faces if I have to to drive the point home.

I will not allow someone without even the basic grasp of logic (you and your kind, Intrepid) to dictate how and when I am allowed to defend my life or freedom, or that of my family. This is because you are WRONG. You are wrong by the proof of history, the proof of recent attempts by cities and states to curtail and eliminate the rights of ALL citizens to self-protection, both from criminals and the government, though these days those two groups are the same, and you are wrong in the light of the Constitution.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEANS EXACTLY THAT. DON'T TOUCH, BACK OFF. ASK THE REDCOATS AT LEXINGTON GREEN ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES IF YOU DON'T.

Of course the very fact that I hold beliefs that I deem more important than my physical safety you would probably call mentally ill, as it seems your cry is for the nanny state to protect you.

You talk of mass murderers, implying by your tone and frequency of mention that they happen on every street corner. You mean mass murderers like stalin, pol pot, mao, hitler? over 160 million people DEAD. And they were ALL first disarmed.

Perhaps you mean mass shootings, the type that are so rare that you are more likely to be killed in this country by a BEE STING or a LIGHTNING BOLT. THAT is the unarguable math of it. No "spin", whatever you are implying by that, but the simple fact.

The Second Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting, sporting purpose, target shooting, duck hunting, or any of the other garbage smokescreens put up by traitorous politicians with an agenda for incremental total government control.

The Second Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with matching, boots on ground to boots on ground, infantry power people verses government.

As to the inevitable, "oh yeah? Huh? what about drones? huh? You gonna go up against a drone with your ar-15, huh, redneck?(always the implication that you are 'white uneducated trash' and insane for not immediately giving up if you are overmatched)", which always follows that statement, drones are just very large aluminum and plastic remote control prop planes, they are NOT bulletproof, and neither are the operators sitting at the joystick.

You will NEVER disarm the people in the Free States of this country. It is unconstitutional, no matter how you try to argue otherwise.

I will NEVER give up my weapons, liberty,or honor, no matter how much you may wish me to. You want to take my guns? Come on and try it yourself, but you better bring your lunch, wear a vest, and pack your biggest hockey stick there, Canuk.


BOOM GOES THE HAMMA

P.S. Thanks for Stana Katic.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Well I will say it: YOUR DEAD DO NOT TRUMP MY RIGHTS. I REFUSE TO ALLOW ANYONE TO ATTEMPT TO INFRINGE UPON MY RIGHTS TO FREEDOM AND LIBERTY BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF A MANIAC.


There you go. Was that so hard? That's exactly what I was getting at. Just admit that the past dead and the future dead don't matter. Btw, most of your post doesn't apply to me. We don't have those problems in Canada.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


I hope you are right Feltrick, I really do, but I just do not trust these "leaders" anymore. I have a nightmare of a planned or even unplanned shooting taking place and a completely dimocrat government putting up a grand show and with a lot of shock and horror and forcing this upon us like this healthcare joke. Did the lair in chief say his re-election was a mandate on ACA? you will hear these words again and again...but i hope you are right fellow American.....I really do........



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DisgruntledPatriot
 




You talk of mass murderers, implying by your tone and frequency of mention that they happen on every street corner. You mean mass murderers like stalin, pol pot, mao, hitler? over 160 million people DEAD. And they were ALL first disarmed.

Perhaps you mean mass shootings, the type that are so rare that you are more likely to be killed in this country by a BEE STING or a LIGHTNING BOLT. THAT is the unarguable math of it. No "spin", whatever you are implying by that, but the simple fact.

The Second Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting, sporting purpose, target shooting, duck hunting, or any of the other garbage smokescreens put up by traitorous politicians with an agenda for incremental total government control.

The Second Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with matching, boots on ground to boots on ground, infantry power people verses government.

This is the biggest bunch of drivel.

The Nazis took over Germany because they were popular, they didn't do it by force. Who did they disarm? The Jews and the Romani? The Jewish people were less than 1 percent of the prewar German population. If you want to find a lesson in the Nazi takeover of Germany, you should examine how they were able to convince people that they had a "Jewish problem" and why they did it. They appealed to nationalism and the German people's belief in their own inherent greatness and a sense of impending economic doom and sealed the deal by scapegoating the Jews. Who were these Germany revolutionaries that were trying to take back their liberty from Hitler, thwarted by your imaginary gun laws? What a crock.

Mao came to power after a civil war that started in 1927 between the CPC (the communists) and the KMT (the existing ROC government) which was put on hold for 9 years in the middle to fend off a Japanese invasion, before ending in 1949. There were no gun laws passed until 1953--after the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, the Three-anti Campaign and Five-anti Campaign had already been conducted.

Stalin didn't disarm the Russians to take power either, he took power after Lenin. Gun ownership by non-party members had already been restricted but the larger issue is that gun ownership by Russians was never comparable to ours before the Bolshevik revolution in the first place. And while we're on the topic of the Soviets--Glasnost and Perestroika didn't have anything to do with people fighting back against the government with guns either.

What's really ironic is that a lot of the regimes featured in these rants actually mandated military training, including of course, firearms training.

I have no interest in banning guns. I figure I might need one some day to protect myself from the Christian Identity nuts if the Alex Joneses of the world ever getting around to starting that civil war they're always trying to incite.
edit on 29-11-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Feltrick
reply to post by teslahowitzer
 

Just because the House or Senate is controlled by the "Dims" does not necessarily mean the 2nd Amendment will be abolished or amended. It takes a two-thirds majority to even propose it. THEN it takes two thirds of the states (38) to approve it.

Did you see the strong-arm tactics that happened for the passage of the ACA?

All the feds have to do is threaten to withhold federal funds to the states, and not back the politicians who refuse to play the game, and they'll get the 38 states that they need. Politicians are the world's biggest cowards and they will give in. Which is a major reason that the Founding Fathers were so against big government.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Unity_99


They don't have the right to deny people basic self defense against rogue armies or rogue civilians.


And how will one or two guns in your house thwart off an army going door to door . How would one get to where they keep the gun safely stored away load it , geez I hope the rogue armies don't mind waiting at your front door while you prepare yourself for a gun fight .. Hopefully they just don't shoot your house with a tank or a missile for resisting . laws where written long before we had the weapons of today laws were written long before we are overpopulated as today and in a state of society of today .

But whatever people can live in fear and live in a delusion of we live in a free society .

edit on 30/11/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Bee sting FACTS

Getting statistics can be difficult, but in 2000, the World Health Organisation reported that in the USA, there were only 54 deaths attributable to bee stings – from a population of 281 million (Census data).


Where do these people come up with the crap that bee stings are more deadly than guns? NRA? Faux News?

Once again, I have to point out that the criminal picks the time, the place, and the victim. There really isn't much you can do with a gun as far as protection goes since you don't have any advance notice by the criminal. Get over it. You have already lost. The best plan is to keep the guns away from the loonies. That will just leave the temporarily crazy people to whack you.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   

intrepid
Whoa, we got the "spin cycle" here. Every time this comes up the gun advocates say, "It's the mentally unstable, not the guns or responsible gun owners." Now we say, "OK, let's look at that closer." Gun advocates say, "Hey, that's an infringement on my rights." If so your whole gun argument goes out the _ Then it's, "I want my guns and I don't care about anything else."

Spin that.


To punish people because of the actions of another is in no way freedom. It's simply punishment.

..Spin that....





new topics
 
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join