Topic: Do you plan to register your guns? | |
---|---|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 01/10/13 07:57 AM
|
|
Good point about the crime not necessarily being down. I can only speak for our country that crime overall is down which isn't necessarily related to gun control but the shootings are also down here as well. I don't know if that is a direct result of gun registration but our politicians seem to think so. If you graph the violent crime of the big 10 developed nations they may be at different places on the graph but it is awfully interesting how the lines all follow the same broad trend of decline. All the while some places increase gun control, and other decrease. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge regarding statistics, or study methodologies should recognize a lack of correlation. That means the idea is spurious, and that other factors are involved. Yet here we are continuing to beat up on guns, and not the real causal factors. We also tend to dramatize our violence in society . . . even while it is going down, we ratchet up the fear to push new policies through. Well; if you read my post; I said I wasn't sure if it had to to with gun registration. ![]() Really? Protecting our rights is an agenda? No reason agenda's must be bad . . .
|
|
|
|
The lobbyists for gun control just want to see some form of control over availability and capability. Yes, but they have no right to that control; that is reserved for the individual people. The only control in that regard (weapon sales) that the American people have willfully delegated to their government is control over people with violent criminal records and diagnosis of mental instability. All other rights regarding gun control are in the hands of the individual American. They don't need a Second amendment for that, but its a good thing it was written down…It saves the entire population from having to individually claim that as their right under natural law. surely you don't want just anyone buying weapons without age restrictions or background checks? That is common sense and compatible with law. Please note that these checks have been in there all along…There is no need for "democratic" legislation (such as that being proposed and much ALREADY in force, that would trample on the natural rights of any human being. Simply put gun registration is NOT compulsary and cannot be lawfully compelled. The same is true in limiting the type of weaponry one can buy. All hyperbole aside, the constitution is not really under 'attack' Attack is the wrong word….It has been a gradual process of evisceration. There are already far too many unconstitutional "laws" on the books that will have to be cleared off with constitutional challenges in the courts. I fear the American people, being the "sleepy" bunch they were have been caught "napping." It's good to see so many finally waking up to what is really going on! Their (alleged) "government" has hit a nerve in them and awakened a sleeping giant (and he's pissed about what it's been doing while he was "napping"). I wouldn't wanna be the American "government" now for all the tea in China! It had better give in & start serving (instead of screwing) the American people again…and quick! What JustDukkyMkII said. ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Considering the 2nd amendment was written when it took 15 minutes to load a weapon and the military had the same weapons as the people, it doesn't even apply today.
But logic usually doesn't work well for those who are stuck mentally at a certain place they were taught to be, eh? It isn't the government who is fighting about this it is citizens like me sending mail to the whitehouse, petitions, contacting local government, etc... I will not stop until something is done that does not include armed teachers and military at our schools. Things will be done that will not include more guns. |
|
|
|
Considering the 2nd amendment was written when it took 15 minutes to load a weapon and the military had the same weapons as the people, it doesn't even apply today. But logic usually doesn't work well for those who are stuck mentally at a certain place they were taught to be, eh? It isn't the government who is fighting about this it is citizens like me sending mail to the whitehouse, petitions, contacting local government, etc... I will not stop until something is done that does not include armed teachers and military at our schools. Things will be done that will not include more guns. I guess you haven't yet figured out that you live in a republic eh? Let me explain the difference between a republic and a democracy... In a democracy, you have what is called the tyranny of the majority. The majority can vote away the rights of the minority. (It doesn't mean they have lost their rights, only that their rights aren't recognized...That's why democracy is called "mob rule" and the tyranny of the majority. In a republic, the RULE OF LAW is the highest rule and the votes of millions can't take away a single right of a single individual. (e.g.)...A democracy is two cannibals and a vegetarian voting on dinner... ...A republic is the cannibals going hungry if they only eat people. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 01/10/13 09:29 AM
|
|
No-one is actually suggesting taking the guns away are they? The lobbyists for gun control just want to see some form of control over availability and capability. Before taking a mile, they must have their inch. Gun regulation and confiscation always usually begins with control and registration. The same officials who want to take our right to bear arms away from us, the common citizen, have guns themselves for protection and even armed guards and armed security.
With the US record for assassinations (either successful or attempted) it is only reasonable. What gives an official the right to bear arms or have armed guards and at the same time prevent citizens, who pay their salaries, the right to protect themselves as well? No, that is not a "reasonable" thing. All men are to be held equal under the law. Obviously lobby groups supported by the parents of dead school children see it another way. Lobby groups supported by whom? What parents of what dead school children are supporting what lobby groups? Lobby groups are very expensive. Where do you get your facts? I know gun control is a dead issue in the US, it's too firmly entrenched in your culture, however, one has to sympathise with the parents of these kids and see their side of the story. No, one does not. There "story" is being exploited by special interests groups and media whores who have an agenda of disarming American citizens and beginning a long battle of enforcing gun control which they hope will lead to changing public opinion and eventual gun confiscation. It is not over by a long shot, nor is it a dead issue. You will see more of the same kind of Media shows in the future that will also be exploited in the same way by the Media. It's not about the gubbmint trying to take yer gunz. The politicians are only responding to lobbyists who want to see an end to these spree shootings. I will call it the the globalist Mafia that wants to disarm us. Politicians better listen up and respond to the public and not to paid lobbyists. We, the public are NOT paying the lobbyists. The public are getting sick of not being heard an represented. Furthermore, the analogy to Nazi Germany is a bit silly too, for Hitler didn't need to take the guns, he achieved power by subterfuge, assassinations, arson and political manipulation. Really? So are you saying the Jews all had guns but they still willingly went to the work/death camps? Or were the Jews simply a non violent people who did not believe in carrying guns? Either way, you know what happened to them. When Germany woke up on the morning of 24th March 1933, any uprising that may have ensued in order to depose Hitler would have been futile and insurgents would have been treated as criminals. The analogy is somewhat spurious in light of historical events. Imagine any form of domestic rebellion against the US government using weapons in a modern scenario, and the rebels would also be treated as criminals, so the reason for the second amendment is somewhat anachronistic in modern times. So in a word, what you are saying is what the "Borg" would say: "Resistance is futile!" Right? But you are correct. Any resistance by rebels will be treated as "criminals" by the criminals running the show. Patriots will be labeled "terrorists" or "insurgents" by Media whores. Propaganda will flourish. During our invasion of Iraq, do you know why our government insisted (to the media) that the term "insurgents" be used in Iraq instead of the term "resistance?" It was because the term "resistance" suggested heroism as it was used to describe the french people who fought in the trenches against Hitler during world war II. It made America look bad to call them "the resistance." It put American in the roll of the invader or Hitler. Thus "the resistance" became "the insurgents." IE: "The resistance" = the good guys "The insurgents" = the bad guys. |
|
|
|
Considering the 2nd amendment was written when it took 15 minutes to load a weapon and the military had the same weapons as the people, it doesn't even apply today. But logic usually doesn't work well for those who are stuck mentally at a certain place they were taught to be, eh? It isn't the government who is fighting about this it is citizens like me sending mail to the whitehouse, petitions, contacting local government, etc... I will not stop until something is done that does not include armed teachers and military at our schools. Things will be done that will not include more guns. I guess you haven't yet figured out that you live in a republic eh? Let me explain the difference between a republic and a democracy... In a democracy, you have what is called the tyranny of the majority. The majority can vote away the rights of the minority. (It doesn't mean they have lost their rights, only that their rights aren't recognized...That's why democracy is called "mob rule" and the tyranny of the majority. In a republic, the RULE OF LAW is the highest rule and the votes of millions can't take away a single right of a single individual. (e.g.)...A democracy is two cannibals and a vegetarian voting on dinner... ...A republic is the cannibals going hungry if they only eat people. And? I and others will still fight for the children not to be slaughtered in less than one minute in their school in this country, call it what you want. There will not be armed teachers and there will not be military guards at the schools to make sure our children can live past 6. |
|
|
|
Considering the 2nd amendment was written when it took 15 minutes to load a weapon and the military had the same weapons as the people, it doesn't even apply today. First and foremost where does the document make that distinction?
Secondly does this apply to other protected rights? Does the 1st only apply to verbal communication or type set printing? Seriously, if you have not considered your argument for a minute you might want to stop and take a few, because its terribad. |
|
|
|
Amendment II 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. this is why the second amendment was added and is supposed to be inalienable it has nothing to do with need for hunting unless you call going after corrupt govt officials hunting ------------------------------------------------------------------- IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world ----------------------------- ****WHO IS GOING TO HOLD THE GOVT ACOUNTABL AND ENFORCE THE DECALRATION OF INDEPENDANCE ENTER THE 2ND AMMENDMENT ---------------------------- U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment Second Amendment - Bearing Arms Amendment Text | Annotations 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. ---------------------------- DEFINITIONS ----------------------------- Main Entry: in•fringe Pronunciation: in-'frinj Function: verb Inflected Forms: in•fringed; in•fring•ing Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in•fring•er noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another en•croach (n-krch) intr.v. en•croached, en•croach•ing, en•croach•es 1. To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land. 2. To advance beyond proper or former limits: desert encroaching upon grassland. 3. Football To commit encroachment. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ peo•ple (ppl) n. pl. people 1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people. 2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality. 3. pl. peo•ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life. 4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people. 5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" Thomas Jefferson. 6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the. 7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people. 8. Family, relatives, or ancestors. 9. Informal Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods http://www.thefreedictionary.com/people ------------------------------------ SO IF THE GOVT INFRINGES (see DEFINITIONS) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (SEE DEFINITIONS) TO BEAR ARMS WHO IS GOING TOENFORCE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WHEN THE GOVT BEGINS ABUSING THEIR POWERS ------------------------------------ deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ------------------------------------ AND BEGIN RESTRICTING THE ------------------------------------ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ------------------------------------- WHO WILL STEP IN AND REMOVE THE ------------------------------------- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ---------------------------------- AND INSTITUTE THE NEW GOVT DO YOU THINK THE GOVT IS GOING TO DO IT IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE AND TO DO SO THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ARMED AN UNARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVE TO THOSE IN POWER AND THE GOVT ARE THE MASTERS WHICH IS NOT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE ------------------------------------- deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, people www.thefreedictionary.com Definition of people by TheFreeDictionary.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- i came up with this along time ago when this site had another name don't remember seeing it anywhere else nor hearing anyone using it this really need to get out there to as many as possible it is a shame the nra and those with money don't use this argument you can not live up to your responsibility to maintain your freedom as forefathers outlined in the declaration of Independence unless you have the weapons the govt will use against you i don't think the united states will nuke the united states |
|
|
|
Hug your guns, they are a cold false security that will in the end provide no comfort to you.
![]() I can hurt/kill a gun toter just as easily as I can hurt a non gun toter, all I have to do is outsmart them... ![]() ![]() ![]() The government is well equipped against millions of gun toters, so no protection there. ![]() The only solace for the gun crazy gun toter is they can take their own life with their own gun before someone else gets them. ![]() |
|
|
|
Considering the 2nd amendment was written when it took 15 minutes to load a weapon and the military had the same weapons as the people, it doesn't even apply today. First and foremost where does the document make that distinction?
Secondly does this apply to other protected rights? Does the 1st only apply to verbal communication or type set printing? Seriously, if you have not considered your argument for a minute you might want to stop and take a few, because its terribad. You have no defense to it eh? Guess it went over your head then? |
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 01/10/13 09:47 AM
|
|
i don't think the united states will nuke the united states Nukes are not even relevant to the topic.
Even mentioning them is a way to inflate the hyperbole. The only concept to focus on is that weapons offer advantages, do you want that advantage in a deadly situation. Yes you do. The weapons in question offer advantages, do you want those advantages in a deadly situation, yes you do. Could not having those advantages get you killed, yes it can. The military knows this, and there is no reason it does not apply to everyone. When anyone starts down the path of need speak, you dont need that, you dont need this, they are clearly engaging in an absurd task of knowing what the future holds and being certain that no deadly encounters will occur for which that advantage will save your life. Its terribly dishonest. Considering the 2nd amendment was written when it took 15 minutes to load a weapon and the military had the same weapons as the people, it doesn't even apply today. First and foremost where does the document make that distinction?
Secondly does this apply to other protected rights? Does the 1st only apply to verbal communication or type set printing? Seriously, if you have not considered your argument for a minute you might want to stop and take a few, because its terribad. You have no defense to it eh? Guess it went over your head then? If its just you are just struggling to make clear and concise statements then you might want to try a little harder. You said, " you have no defense to it eh?" No defense to what? See this makes no sense from your post I responded to. Your claim is that the second amendment was only intended for the weapons of the time. I asked if that applied to the first, and you ask me if I have any defense to that . . . which makes no sense to me. Then you say it goes over my head . . . I think it never left your head. |
|
|
|
Hey
![]() you can not live up to your responsibility to maintain your freedom as forefathers outlined in the declaration of Independence unless you have the weapons the govt will use against you i don't think the united states will nuke the united states We don't have to nuke ourselves. Just determine the "insurgents" are not patriotic and might be lead by a psycho that means harm to the other members of this country and a drone strike would do. I am sure they will not draw it out like Waco. |
|
|
|
i don't think the united states will nuke the united states Nukes are not even relevant to the topic.
Even mentioning them is a way to inflate the hyperbole. The only concept to focus on is that weapons offer advantages, do you want that advantage in a deadly situation. Yes you do. The weapons in question offer advantages, do you want those advantages in a deadly situation, yes you do. Could not having those advantages get you killed, yes it can. The military knows this, and there is no reason it does not apply to everyone. When anyone starts down the path of need speak, you dont need that, you dont need this, they are clearly engaging in an absurd task of knowing what the future holds and being certain that no deadly encounters will occur for which that advantage will save your life. Its terribly dishonest. Considering the 2nd amendment was written when it took 15 minutes to load a weapon and the military had the same weapons as the people, it doesn't even apply today. First and foremost where does the document make that distinction?
Secondly does this apply to other protected rights? Does the 1st only apply to verbal communication or type set printing? Seriously, if you have not considered your argument for a minute you might want to stop and take a few, because its terribad. You have no defense to it eh? Guess it went over your head then? Oh I was suppose to digress in the logic? Sorry I didn't realize that. I am past the point you brought up with my original statement. So do I need to repeat it so you apply it or.... |
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 01/10/13 09:50 AM
|
|
Hey ![]() you can not live up to your responsibility to maintain your freedom as forefathers outlined in the declaration of Independence unless you have the weapons the govt will use against you i don't think the united states will nuke the united states We don't have to nuke ourselves. Just determine the "insurgents" are not patriotic and might be lead by a psycho that means harm to the other members of this country and a drone strike would do. I am sure they will not draw it out like Waco. I asked specific questions that you have failed to even come close to acknowledging. So do I need to repeat it so you apply it or.... No where in this thread have you addressed the contradiction I presented.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Thu 01/10/13 09:53 AM
|
|
Considering the 2nd amendment was written when it took 15 minutes to load a weapon and the military had the same weapons as the people, it doesn't even apply today. But logic usually doesn't work well for those who are stuck mentally at a certain place they were taught to be, eh? It isn't the government who is fighting about this it is citizens like me sending mail to the whitehouse, petitions, contacting local government, etc... I will not stop until something is done that does not include armed teachers and military at our schools. Things will be done that will not include more guns. I guess you haven't yet figured out that you live in a republic eh? Let me explain the difference between a republic and a democracy... In a democracy, you have what is called the tyranny of the majority. The majority can vote away the rights of the minority. (It doesn't mean they have lost their rights, only that their rights aren't recognized...That's why democracy is called "mob rule" and the tyranny of the majority. In a republic, the RULE OF LAW is the highest rule and the votes of millions can't take away a single right of a single individual. (e.g.)...A democracy is two cannibals and a vegetarian voting on dinner... ...A republic is the cannibals going hungry if they only eat people. And? I and others will still fight for the children not to be slaughtered in less than one minute in their school in this country, call it what you want. There will not be armed teachers and there will not be military guards at the schools to make sure our children can live past 6. If you are seriously concerned for the kids' safety, then you'll be lobbying AGAINST gun free zones and FOR armed teachers. To do the opposite will be working against your stated goals of child safety; you will be working to help ensure that such massacres will continue. If your work and lobbying were to prove successful (it won't be, not lawfully so at any rate) you would then have to accept your own moral responsibility for every kid's death or maiming that could have been prevented by a child's armed school staffer. That will be YOUR cross to bear. |
|
|
|
Oh I see, Bush wants a full and utter back to grade school break down of the fact that 200 years ago things were much different than they are today.
So naturally things that applied then will not apply now So some of us, have to take our thinking outside the box of what a 200 year old man would do today and make the changes to make it right for today. Today. Yea. |
|
|
|
Hey ![]() you can not live up to your responsibility to maintain your freedom as forefathers outlined in the declaration of Independence unless you have the weapons the govt will use against you i don't think the united states will nuke the united states We don't have to nuke ourselves. Just determine the "insurgents" are not patriotic and might be lead by a psycho that means harm to the other members of this country and a drone strike would do. I am sure they will not draw it out like Waco. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 01/10/13 09:57 AM
|
|
Oh I see, Bush wants a full and utter back to grade school break down of the fact that 200 years ago things were much different than they are today. So naturally things that applied then will not apply now So some of us, have to take our thinking outside the box of what a 200 year old man would do today and make the changes to make it right for today. Today. Yea. See, when you consistently apply logic and it leads to absurd results it shows you the logic is faulty. What is even more interesting is that no supreme court ruling has EVER agreed with you. I imagine that logic is better understood by them . . . |
|
|
|
Considering the 2nd amendment was written when it took 15 minutes to load a weapon and the military had the same weapons as the people, it doesn't even apply today. But logic usually doesn't work well for those who are stuck mentally at a certain place they were taught to be, eh? It isn't the government who is fighting about this it is citizens like me sending mail to the whitehouse, petitions, contacting local government, etc... I will not stop until something is done that does not include armed teachers and military at our schools. Things will be done that will not include more guns. I guess you haven't yet figured out that you live in a republic eh? Let me explain the difference between a republic and a democracy... In a democracy, you have what is called the tyranny of the majority. The majority can vote away the rights of the minority. (It doesn't mean they have lost their rights, only that their rights aren't recognized...That's why democracy is called "mob rule" and the tyranny of the majority. In a republic, the RULE OF LAW is the highest rule and the votes of millions can't take away a single right of a single individual. (e.g.)...A democracy is two cannibals and a vegetarian voting on dinner... ...A republic is the cannibals going hungry if they only eat people. And? I and others will still fight for the children not to be slaughtered in less than one minute in their school in this country, call it what you want. There will not be armed teachers and there will not be military guards at the schools to make sure our children can live past 6. If you are seriously concerned for the kids' safety, then you'll be lobbying AGAINST gun free zones and FOR armed teachers. To do the opposite will be working against your stated goals of child safety; you will be working to help ensure that such massacres will continue. If your work and lobbying were to prove successful (it won't be, not lawfully so at any rate) you would then have to accept your own moral responsibility for every kid's death or maiming that could have been prevented by a child's armed school staffer. That will be YOUR cross to bear. Not, because I am not a lunatic.... I cannot take my mind back to a less intelligent point of being so I can entertain barbaric stupidity...Sorry I WILL continue to fight for sanity to prevail eventually in this country. |
|
|
|
Not, because I am not a lunatic....
RIIIIIGHT, cause its totally sane to write down on a piece of paper that it is illegal to kill, and expect that to fix the killing problem!
I cannot take my mind back to a less intelligent point of being so I can entertain barbaric stupidity...Sorry I WILL continue to fight for sanity to prevail eventually in this country. But it is totally insane to think that killing the bad guy stops him killing innocents! |
|
|