100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A petition that just might get some attention | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
He was attacking your constitutional rights? He wasn't using free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right? fixed it for ya Of course you are right, even non-gun owners rights would be removed. Isn't it amazing my friend? Therein lies the problem..... people just don't get it!  I wear a patch on my vest that reads "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand!" It's about Harleys of course....but it fits this scenario perfectly! Well, he can't be the one who takes away your right to own a gun. Just as you can't take away his right to free speech. So, wanting him deported for disagreeing with you is pretty lame. Enough people convince themselves its ok, it becomes ok. By that standard he is indeed engaging in a process of removing our rights using his rights to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 01/18/13 08:37 AM
|
|
Repeating a lie does not make it truth, only more believable over time....to the gullible too lazy to seek the truth.
I say again.... Try it in Russia or elsewhere.... look at what happened to the female group in Russia over a simple song.... an art form.... or the creator of the film they attempted to blamed Benghazi on (who went to jail even tho it came out as a lie)... what makes Piers so special? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology. ~ Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. ...except that they are treason against the constitution he's sworn to up hold...no biggie...If the large majority of you prefer a murderous tyranny to a constitutional republic, bon appetit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was attacking your constitutional rights? He wasn't using free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right? fixed it for ya Of course you are right, even non-gun owners rights would be removed. Isn't it amazing my friend? Therein lies the problem..... people just don't get it! I wear a patch on my vest that reads "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand!" It's about Harleys of course....but it fits this scenario perfectly! Well, he can't be the one who takes away your right to own a gun. Just as you can't take away his right to free speech. So, wanting him deported for disagreeing with you is pretty lame. Enough people convince themselves its ok, it becomes ok. By that standard he is indeed engaging in a process of removing our rights using his rights to do so. Eh, he's being a hypocrite if he is b*tching about his rights being infringed upon, yet wants to take away someone's freedom of speech. I guess he believes that it's ok for him to infringe upon others' rights as long as it doesn't happen to him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'freedom' is an illusion besides the emotions we feel , nothing in life is free or comes without some cost, (either in consequence, or responsibility) for instance we have the 'right' to exercise our religion(regulated by common sense to not include exercise of religious practices that break other laws) and 'free speech' (but not to use it to yell fire in a theater) we have the 'right' to bear arms (for a well REGULATED militia, common sense tells us before we had the branches of the military, people had to be able to protect themself somehow and to hunt,,etc,, a different culture, where plenty of people werent even considered people yet,,,) we have a right to a 'speedy trial' (no definitive description of what 'speedy' means ,,exactly) civil suits above twenty dollars should include a jury (shows how different the culture was at the time) we have the right not to be strictly HELD to the Constitution if we decide to retain other 'rights' ourself powers not given to the US in the constituion, or the states, are reserved for individuals and the right to keep and bear arms is as unspecific as the right to a 'speedy trial', speedy is given no definitive description, nor is 'arms' so we end up with the right to a trial, and the right to have protection,, we dont end up with a right to have a one week trial, or the right to have unregulated/unlimited protection,,,, Pretty words don't ensure freedom, and it's not an illusion except maybe in your surrender eyes! If freedom were an illusion why are they trying so hard to deny it? There are some of us who believe in America and the principles it was founded on, were willing to fight and spill our blood for it, so people who believe like you could have the "right" to allow others to take those rights we fought to preserve away! Every right you give away in your ignorance is a slap to the face of every veteran who ever served their country! A PROUD American indeed! I think arrogant is a better word! I think logical and realistic PARENT would be the best words keep fighting for the right of any and every joe blow to have weapons of their choice just becaue they are american I will continue to believe in dealing with the realities we face and adjusting and evolving accordingly I dont mind if people think that is 'arrogant' Delusional might be an even better word in your case since the constitution says every "joe blow" AMERICAN has that right and to think otherwise is FAR from reality! no, it actually doesnt say every joe blow, it gives a specific prefix, of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA,,,,children are citizens, yet not in the militia and Im sure not intended to be inlcluded in that statement nor do I believe at a time when firearms took so much more effort, did the writers ever DREAM of the tools we have now or would have proposed that every citizen should have access to them |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. I wonder if anyone really thinks it makes sense when they examine the numbers. I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can. So 200 million people need to have their rights restricted due to the incidence of mass killings by AR-15 wielding assailants? So, even if we are incredible charitable and pretend that criminals will be unable to get this kind of weapon after the ban, even though their is studies showing that this is unlikely to cause any difficulty in that regard, we are looking at an event which accounts for less than 1/10 of a percent of murders to begin with. Yea . . . makes sense, lets remove rights of the many for the actions of the TINY TINY TINY minority. YUP, thats the change we need! we only have the 'right' to purchase whats available to buy and the industry of guns are a regulated industry, just like vehicles, or homes, or any other number of products I can go out and buy , for instance, a TV but if there is a defect in Zeniths thats causing the tube to blow up, and they stop selling them for safety precautions,,, I am still free to buy a different tv now, if suddenly , the manufacture of tvs is forbidden,, I would feel it an infringment but regulating the choices, is a natural process of any merchandise sold in america,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. I wonder if anyone really thinks it makes sense when they examine the numbers. I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can. So 200 million people need to have their rights restricted due to the incidence of mass killings by AR-15 wielding assailants? So, even if we are incredible charitable and pretend that criminals will be unable to get this kind of weapon after the ban, even though their is studies showing that this is unlikely to cause any difficulty in that regard, we are looking at an event which accounts for less than 1/10 of a percent of murders to begin with. Yea . . . makes sense, lets remove rights of the many for the actions of the TINY TINY TINY minority. YUP, thats the change we need! and what percent of these weapons are used to kill people, compared to the percent of times they are used to save them ,,,, anyone know? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology. ~ Ayn Rand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'freedom' is an illusion besides the emotions we feel , nothing in life is free or comes without some cost, (either in consequence, or responsibility) for instance we have the 'right' to exercise our religion(regulated by common sense to not include exercise of religious practices that break other laws) and 'free speech' (but not to use it to yell fire in a theater) we have the 'right' to bear arms (for a well REGULATED militia, common sense tells us before we had the branches of the military, people had to be able to protect themself somehow and to hunt,,etc,, a different culture, where plenty of people werent even considered people yet,,,) we have a right to a 'speedy trial' (no definitive description of what 'speedy' means ,,exactly) civil suits above twenty dollars should include a jury (shows how different the culture was at the time) we have the right not to be strictly HELD to the Constitution if we decide to retain other 'rights' ourself powers not given to the US in the constituion, or the states, are reserved for individuals and the right to keep and bear arms is as unspecific as the right to a 'speedy trial', speedy is given no definitive description, nor is 'arms' so we end up with the right to a trial, and the right to have protection,, we dont end up with a right to have a one week trial, or the right to have unregulated/unlimited protection,,,, Pretty words don't ensure freedom, and it's not an illusion except maybe in your surrender eyes! If freedom were an illusion why are they trying so hard to deny it? There are some of us who believe in America and the principles it was founded on, were willing to fight and spill our blood for it, so people who believe like you could have the "right" to allow others to take those rights we fought to preserve away! Every right you give away in your ignorance is a slap to the face of every veteran who ever served their country! A PROUD American indeed! I think arrogant is a better word! I think logical and realistic PARENT would be the best words keep fighting for the right of any and every joe blow to have weapons of their choice just becaue they are american I will continue to believe in dealing with the realities we face and adjusting and evolving accordingly I dont mind if people think that is 'arrogant' Delusional might be an even better word in your case since the constitution says every "joe blow" AMERICAN has that right and to think otherwise is FAR from reality! no, it actually doesnt say every joe blow, it gives a specific prefix, of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA,,,,children are citizens, yet not in the militia and Im sure not intended to be inlcluded in that statement nor do I believe at a time when firearms took so much more effort, did the writers ever DREAM of the tools we have now or would have proposed that every citizen should have access to them |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. I wonder if anyone really thinks it makes sense when they examine the numbers. I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can. So 200 million people need to have their rights restricted due to the incidence of mass killings by AR-15 wielding assailants? So, even if we are incredible charitable and pretend that criminals will be unable to get this kind of weapon after the ban, even though their is studies showing that this is unlikely to cause any difficulty in that regard, we are looking at an event which accounts for less than 1/10 of a percent of murders to begin with. Yea . . . makes sense, lets remove rights of the many for the actions of the TINY TINY TINY minority. YUP, thats the change we need! and what percent of these weapons are used to kill people, compared to the percent of times they are used to save them ,,,, anyone know? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. I wonder if anyone really thinks it makes sense when they examine the numbers. I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can. So 200 million people need to have their rights restricted due to the incidence of mass killings by AR-15 wielding assailants? So, even if we are incredible charitable and pretend that criminals will be unable to get this kind of weapon after the ban, even though their is studies showing that this is unlikely to cause any difficulty in that regard, we are looking at an event which accounts for less than 1/10 of a percent of murders to begin with. Yea . . . makes sense, lets remove rights of the many for the actions of the TINY TINY TINY minority. YUP, thats the change we need! and what percent of these weapons are used to kill people, compared to the percent of times they are used to save them ,,,, anyone know? I doubt it,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self Defense Hindered
Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her? One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed? The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive. For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms? And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed? http://bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self Defense Hindered Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her? One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed? The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive. For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms? And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed? http://bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm how many lives could be saved each year if parents didnt have loaded weapons in their homes? the what ifs are endless which is even more reason for both sides to stop needing to be right, and start figuring out how to do right unlimited access to unlimited weapons of unlimited power is as much nonsense as 'banning' all guns from all people both are extremes that will go nowhere,,,and a balance needs to be struck somewhere |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unlimited access to unlimited weapons of unlimited power is as much nonsense as 'banning' all guns from all people Tell that to your government...I don't think they got that memo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unlimited access to unlimited weapons of unlimited power is as much nonsense as 'banning' all guns from all people Tell that to your government...I don't think they got that memo. depends upon pov , I guess we have already been decreasing our nuclear arsenal for a while now,,thank goodness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self Defense Hindered Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her? One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed? The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive. For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms? And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed? http://bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm how many lives could be saved each year if parents didnt have loaded weapons in their homes? the what ifs are endless which is even more reason for both sides to stop needing to be right, and start figuring out how to do right unlimited access to unlimited weapons of unlimited power is as much nonsense as 'banning' all guns from all people both are extremes that will go nowhere,,,and a balance needs to be struck somewhere Wake up and smell the Coffee! They play for keeps! They are playing the same Game in my Country as they do in yours! Every Country in the past that instituted "reasonable" Guncontrol ended up with Government having all the Guns and a repressed Citizenry! How do you think Hitler got away with his Genocide? How do you think Mao was able to kill 35 million of his Fellow Countrymen? How do you think Stalin was able with murdering 25 million Russians! How do you think the Ottomans,and Ataturk were able to kill 3.5 million Armenians? So-called "reasonable" Guncontrol started it all! Doesn't really matter what you say or think,the evidence is there. Same goes with all the Countries that ended up behind the Iron Curtain! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A steady drip of water will eventually fill the bowl to overflowing despite the "natural" law of evaporation. The constitution does not give you rights, it ensures the ones free men and women are born with! Giving up one little piece of your god given freedom and birthright at a time, for the false sense of security offered by another, soon you will have neither freedom or security! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 01/19/13 10:03 AM
|
|
Self Defense Hindered Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her? One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed? The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive. For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms? And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed? http://bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm how many lives could be saved each year if parents didnt have loaded weapons in their homes? the what ifs are endless which is even more reason for both sides to stop needing to be right, and start figuring out how to do right unlimited access to unlimited weapons of unlimited power is as much nonsense as 'banning' all guns from all people both are extremes that will go nowhere,,,and a balance needs to be struck somewhere Wake up and smell the Coffee! They play for keeps! They are playing the same Game in my Country as they do in yours! Every Country in the past that instituted "reasonable" Guncontrol ended up with Government having all the Guns and a repressed Citizenry! How do you think Hitler got away with his Genocide? How do you think Mao was able to kill 35 million of his Fellow Countrymen? How do you think Stalin was able with murdering 25 million Russians! How do you think the Ottomans,and Ataturk were able to kill 3.5 million Armenians? So-called "reasonable" Guncontrol started it all! Doesn't really matter what you say or think,the evidence is there. Same goes with all the Countries that ended up behind the Iron Curtain! alot of generalizations there,,, politicians are people, I believe there are some who are interested in the best interest of americans and some who arent Hitlers gun control wasnt 'reasonable', he systematically dehumanized and disarmed one SUB GROUP of the population inevitability isnt predicated on the actions of a few thats like trying to blame weed for crackheads plenty are able to indulge in one without ever indulging in the other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 01/19/13 10:27 AM
|
|
Self Defense Hindered Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her? One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed? The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive. For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms? And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed? http://bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm how many lives could be saved each year if parents didnt have loaded weapons in their homes? the what ifs are endless which is even more reason for both sides to stop needing to be right, and start figuring out how to do right unlimited access to unlimited weapons of unlimited power is as much nonsense as 'banning' all guns from all people both are extremes that will go nowhere,,,and a balance needs to be struck somewhere Wake up and smell the Coffee! They play for keeps! They are playing the same Game in my Country as they do in yours! Every Country in the past that instituted "reasonable" Guncontrol ended up with Government having all the Guns and a repressed Citizenry! How do you think Hitler got away with his Genocide? How do you think Mao was able to kill 35 million of his Fellow Countrymen? How do you think Stalin was able with murdering 25 million Russians! How do you think the Ottomans,and Ataturk were able to kill 3.5 million Armenians? So-called "reasonable" Guncontrol started it all! Doesn't really matter what you say or think,the evidence is there. Same goes with all the Countries that ended up behind the Iron Curtain! alot of generalizations there,,, politicians are people, I believe there are some who are interested in the best interest of americans and some who arent Hitlers gun control wasnt 'reasonable', he systematically dehumanized and disarmed one SUB GROUP of the population inevitability isnt predicated on the actions of a few thats like trying to blame weed for crackheads plenty are able to indulge in one without ever indulging in the other As usual! You really need to do a bit of reading History! Didn't happen in one or two places! Happened in every place I have mentioned,plus a few more! 1953 Berlin Uprising,People going barehanded at Russian Tanks because that's all they had! 1956 Budapest,Hungary Uprising,crushed by Russian Tanks! Same scenario as Berlin three years before 1968 Russian Tanks crush the Prague Spring,same Scenario as in Germany and Hungary! I'll never forget the helpless anger we felt at the News of each of those events! And it will not happen again as long as I am able to do something about it! In each Instance the People were disarmed beforehand by their respective Government! And you really think it can't happen in the USofA? You really have no idea what you are up against! Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. |
|
|
|
|
