Topic: Funs with Guns | |
---|---|
Edited by
rambill79
on
Wed 04/16/08 04:47 PM
|
|
I as a shooter know whats going to happen when i pull the trigger and im not likely to shoot someone without a damn good reason. Uh-huh.. Neither would I.. But to say it is impossible for me to make a mistake? Even our trained military cannot make that claim. Statistics indicate otherwise. Friendly fire casualties in U.S. history. World War II 21% Korea 18% Vietnam 39% Persian Gulf 52% Panama .08% Haiti 0% Iraq 41% Afghanistan 13% So.. I'm led to believe... Well.. nevermind. No use telling someone who thinks they are perfect that they are human and not infallible. theres a commie half truth using ststistics...... Frirndly fire incidents include air to ground incidents, Artillery, ect. ect ad nauseum.. This list is comparing apples to stop signs. nuff said. i dont have to be perfect to recognise that when i cap someone they fold and thats a bad thing..... for the most part. If someone is threatening my life i have the right/duty to protect myself. where is the grey area? |
|
|
|
1900's. Somehow I am reminded of those that read the Bible way too literally. Without taking into account the social and political climate of the time. |
|
|
|
Before they can convince you that rights emanate from them (the government), they must first eliminate God.
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands of those who feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams |
|
|
|
From the briefs of the Supreme Court, Washington DC v Heller:
To limit the right to keep and bear arms to a state regulated militia is to disregard what the Framers understood -- that individual possession of arms is essential to preventing usurpation by the state. During the 20th Century, more than 70 million people were slaughtered on a massive scale by their own governments after first being disarmed. This pattern repeated itself in Ottoman Turkey (1915-17), the Soviet Union (1929-45), Nazi Germany and Occupied Europe (1933-1945), Nationalist China (1927-1949), Communist China (1949-52, 1957-60, and 1966-70), Guatemala (1960-81), Uganda (1971-79), Cambodia (1975-79) and Rwanda (1994) just to name a few. In many cases, firearm confiscation followed only after the groundwork was laid by purportedly 'reasonable' regulation and registration of firearms. History illustrates just how readily the standardless 'reasonable' regulation of firearms invites large scale abuse by the state and ultimately paves the way for wholesale confiscation of arms and the mass slaughter of the disarmed. -- from the brief of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership |
|
|
|
1900's. Somehow I am reminded of those that read the Bible way too literally. Without taking into account the social and political climate of the time. you don't have to agree with everyone's opinion and this thread isn't solely your's. just sayin. for the most part, i agree with you. regulation on what we can have is an infringement |
|
|
|
Edited by
rambill79
on
Wed 04/16/08 04:58 PM
|
|
Every gun law on the books is unconstitutional. Gun regulation is strictly prohibited by the second amendment. Although that is a popular way to interpret it.. The Federal Circuit Court, many legal and Constitutional historians would seem to historically have disagreed with you. If it was so clear? Then why is it so clearly misunderstood? There is no part in there that says the State cannot tell you what kind of weapons you can bear...and how you can bear it. It merely says that it cannot infringe on your right to bear them. So long as you have a firearm? Your right to bear it is not infringed upon. Considering the type of personal weapons available at the time the amendment was written... and the overall political and social climate of the land. I'm relatively sure that they lacked the foresight to see what kind of firepower we would start to see in the late 1800's to early 1900's. Somehow I am reminded of those that read the Bible way too literally. Without taking into account the social and political climate of the time. please realise that all the constitution was purpously written in 8th grade english. no fancy law degrees or judges needed to "interpet" what is a simple statement: " the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. any judge or law or bill or action that restricts any of my my RIGHTS is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE. get over it: all 20,000 Gun laws ARE ILLEGAL and we as citizens should not be bound to obey them. period. no grey area there. Dont make me break out Bklacks law dictionary and walk yall thru the second Amendment word for word. i can kill someone just as dead with a muzzleloader as any other more modern weapon. this business of how the founders couldent envision our weapons is irrelavent. They wanted to ensure that the citizens had the same firepower as the standing army, lest that Army begin to exploit an unarmed populace. It is EXACTLY the same situation today as then. duhhhh. |
|
|
|
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"
Patrick Henry |
|
|
|
1900's. Somehow I am reminded of those that read the Bible way too literally. Without taking into account the social and political climate of the time. you don't have to agree with everyone's opinion and this thread isn't solely your's. just sayin. for the most part, i agree with you. regulation on what we can have is an infringement |
|
|
|
nor is someone right to start slinging crap. To call me an extremist, or a moron, which is what he did in the nicest educated way, is completely unfounded, or called for. Think what you wish, but your opinion means less than his to me
well rob, for very many this is a very touchy issue with strong emotions. many people could/would be more harsh in their opinions about progun/2nd amendment folk. it's part of the nature of it |
|
|
|
nor is someone right to start slinging crap. To call me an extremist, or a moron, which is what he did in the nicest educated way, is completely unfounded, or called for. Think what you wish, but your opinion means less than his to me
well rob, for very many this is a very touchy issue with strong emotions. many people could/would be more harsh in their opinions about progun/2nd amendment folk. it's part of the nature of it To anger a conservative lie to him To anger a liberal, tell him the truth |
|
|
|
**** happens, that'd what i'd chalk it up to.
|
|
|
|
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."-Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824 |
|
|
|
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 |
|
|
|
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46 |
|
|
|
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution June 8, 1789 |
|
|
|
"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison |
|
|
|
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
John Adams (1735-1826 |
|
|