Drewhop Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Guns just aren't safe, they should be outlawed Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahnstoermer1647545488 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 LOL.... Luckily we've had some very strong wins recently, especially the Supreme Court ruling. Nice to see Chicago get sued, and Cleveland as well. The insanity is that the Supreme Court ruling was 5-4 confirming the second amendment confirmed an individual right to keep arms. Uhm, like uh, that's exactly what it SAYS, how the FUCK could it mean anything else? And if there are any anti-gunners in here saying sarcastic things like "there's no gun lobby in the NRA"... the NRA is right here fool, and you can piss off or move to England. Guns in this country aren't going anywhere.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 A few of my thoughts... Let's start with the 2nd Amendment: -Congress' version- "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." -State's version- "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." There seems to be some discrepancy over capitalization and punctuation, but I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference in regards to the amendment's meaning or intentions. IMO, the State's version trumps Congress' version since that's the one they (the States) ratified. It seems to me that most politicians have a hard time determining exactly what a 'militia' is. They seem to think that it refers to our military, which is wrong. Traditionally, a militia is made up of common citizens, unpaid, for whatever purpose they might need to serve. The National Guard IS NOT A MILITIA! It can be called upon by the Federal Gov't in time of need and therefore is subject to their influence. During the time that the Bill of Rights came along, the newly formed United States of America had just finished (or was still) dealing with the overthrow of a tyrannical government. As such, they saw the importance of keeping the common citizen (read: The People) well armed. IMO, this means as well armed as the government. Sadly, the majority of this country (and politicians) seem to think that the 2A is for home defense, and hunting.... How much sense does that make? It's #2 on the Bill of Rights. #2! #1 - You can run your mouth. The People can use this to get what they want, or say what they want in an effort to govern their government. #2 - A backup in case #1 fails. Federal Gov't won't listen to you? Try's to go tyrannical on you? Shoot them. They should have no advantage over you (The People) when it comes to Arms, because this limits the effectiveness of #2. The 2A is pretty cut-n-dry. Congress is scared right now. The recent shooting of Gabby Gifford has rattled their cages. The weaker ones (gun grabbers) are going to attempt to limit those who can hurt them the most, The People. I'm here to tell you that they won't succeed. As much as I don't condone the shooting of innocent people such as Gabrielle Gifford, I think it should be a wake-up call for our current politicians that they aren't untouchable. Yes, I realize that the shooter was bat shit crazy and had no logical reason for going on a rampage, but, I feel that it's a good opportunity for our politicians to really think about why they're in the position they're in. Perhaps they should really put some thought into who their votes are going to affect, or piss off before throwing it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted February 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Hit the nail on the head as usual Austin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stangsn95gt Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Hit the nail on the head as usual Austin. He sure did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veryfastvr4 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 next time Obama visits a military spot the men of our country should insist on him sharing in some fun and practices of uses of firearms as any president should. maybe a lil joking around, some shooting, some picture taking holding the guns with our troops and so forth..... it would be hard for him to say no to it aswell as say hey these are bad toys noone needs them right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veryfastvr4 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 He sure did austin always has great views... maybe he should start running for some political openings an work his way up haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 As much as I don't condone the shooting of innocent people such as Gabrielle Gifford, I think it should be a wake-up call for our current politicians that they aren't untouchable. Yes, I realize that the shooter was bat shit crazy and had no logical reason for going on a rampage, but, I feel that it's a good opportunity for our politicians to really think about why they're in the position they're in. Perhaps they should really put some thought into who their votes are going to affect, or piss off before throwing it down. You know, I was with you up until here. As soon as you say "As much as I don't condone the shooting of innocents..." that should be a red flag that what you're about to say next is going to be crazy. If you want to send a wake up call to politicians that they aren't untouchable, do it through the ballot box, not by getting behind the bullets of an insane person. If you want politicians to suffer consequences of decisions you don't agree with, then encourage others to vote them out of office. That's the American way. Feeling optimistic, opportunistic, or any other positive adjective about an assassination is just wrong. That's not how we do things in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 "As much as I don't condone the shooting of innocents..." .. not by getting behind the bullets of an insane person. see what I did there? Yes, let's all go out and vote for people who will change everything and make it all better. Except then they get in office and can vote however they damn well please with little accountability unless the media jumps their shit. The voting public doesn't have the time nor desire to research and follow every one of their representatives so they know what's going on. I suspect they'll just write it off as a fluke, attributed to "a crazy idiot" rather than a wake-up call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 I really don't see what you did there... I understand the frustration with politicians, but I also believe that the democratic system we have here is the best of a bunch of crummy options. If you look at how we're doing in the world, we're still the best country there is, and I attribute that in large part to our long history of peaceful changes of power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 I just pointed out that he said he didn't condone something, then you made reference to his statement as though he did. That's how it came off to me anyways. I'd argue that our country is pretty decent because we just haven't had enough time to screw it up yet (but we're trying). We've only been around a few centuries, so give it time. And we've already got one civil war under our belt too! The bigger issue here is a growing trend in dissatisfaction with our elected officials. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 I just pointed out that he said he didn't condone something, then you made reference to his statement as though he did. That's how it came off to me anyways. That's kinda what he did. It's like the old adage, if you say "I'm not a racist, but..." then whatever you're going to say next is probably racist. If you say "I don't condone this shooting, but it's a good opportunity for politicians to wake up," and then go on to say that politicians need to realize that they're not "untouchable," as though this assassination is a reasonable consequence of legislation... it's just not right. I'd argue that our country is pretty decent because we just haven't had enough time to screw it up yet (but we're trying). We've only been around a few centuries, so give it time. And we've already got one civil war under our belt too! The bigger issue here is a growing trend in dissatisfaction with our elected officials. Right? I don't think there's a growing trend of dissatisfaction with our elected officials. People have always hated politicians, going back to the birth of our country. The same shit people complain about now is the same shit people complained about 100 years ago. What you're talking about is nostalgia -- every remembers the good old days, and things must certainly be worse now. But it's almost never the case. Don't believe me? Play around with this: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Obama... doesn't matter, everyone fluxuates between 40 and 70 % approval pretty much. People were just as disgruntled back before you were born as they are now. In fact, I vaguely remember a president or two getting shot by disgruntled people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Since the birth of our nation? I didn't see George Washington on your link. Where are you getting that data from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 History class? I'm not sure polling was very good back then, so if you disagree with the assertion I probably won't be able to back it up with a cite. Let me throw the ball back in your court then -- you say people are more dissatisfied lately. What time frame are you talking about, and give me a cite that its true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.