Hobo look who has tried harder to remove the 2nd amendment from the Constituion than anyone. BTW this all goes back to FDR in 1934 before that you could own anykind of weapon you wanted. Yep if you wanted a BAR you could have one. However after the Gang Wars in the 30's FDR USING FEAR got a restrictin on gun Ownership passed. Chicago the Gun Ban was passed by a Democrap in 1982 I can not recall who did DC's but I can guess maybe Berry another DEMONCRAP. Then we had Clintons Assault weapons ban in the 90's . BTW you are aware than even a M1 Garand would be considered an Assulat rifle under what Obama wants to propose. He wants to propose that anyweaon that can fire more than one round befroe being RELOADED is an assault rifle. He stated that many times in the IL senate

 

..

You really believe that?

 

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are collectively and commonly known as The Bill of Rights. Your opinion is that the Bill of Rights enumerates 9 individual rights and 1 right of a militia should a militia become necessary?

My opinion is that the Bill of Rights enumerates 10 rights of individuals and, for the time being at least, a majority of the Supreme Court agrees with me.

I don't believe that a militia was contemplated exclusively as a response to the threat of a tyrannical government. In many respects, the threats of the day then were no different than the threats we face today. Government, as in the police, for instance, can't be everywhere to respond to every threat and the right to own and use a gun to defend yourself was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. If law abiding residents of Chicago decide to band together to take back their streets, whether or not they choose to call themselves a militia, there can be no (insert your label here) __________ if there is no gun ownership.

I had a delivery on Chicago's south side and, as you're probably aware, parking options are very limited, so I took the chance that I'd be able to overnight at the final. I got there, it wasn't gated, they weren't open, there was plenty of room and, lo and behold, there was a strip club in sight and in walking distance! While I considered a leisurely stroll, I heard two gunshots and the distinctive whine of a bullet in flight, near but probably not at my truck. My first two thoughts were that one, I wished I had a gun and two, the girls are going to have to wait. I believe that the Founders intent was for me to freely engage in commerce that night. Whether or not I chose to engage in a gunfight was my choice and my right, as well. In my case, there was no gun and therefor, no choice. I never saw the shooters (I believe it was two different guns) or the hooters and I never heard a response from the police.

 

No the man killed himself because he acted foolish. You don't play with guns. He messed with the bull he got the horns! We can't keep making laws or restricting certain things to cater to the idiots of the country.

No, it was an idiot with a loaded gun.

Guns aren't any more dangerous than baseball bats. I've never witnessed either one chasing somebody down and killing them by itself. They just sit there until a person picks them up.


It's the responsibility of the gun owner to make sure his/her weapon is in a place where the child can't get it. Wives die from domestic violence when there aren't any guns in the house too. What about wives that poison there husbands with rat poison? Should we ban that too? How about wives that cut off there husbands crotch with a knife in the middle of the night? Should we ban all knives? Where do we stop?

The question is when do we hold people responsible for their own actions. Why do responsible gun owners have to lose their freedoms because of irresponsible people?
You can't save an idiot from himself hobo.




Fear mongering.

Wrong! Some people believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!
Others believe we need laws to save us from ourselves.

SAY WHAT?????? No way, do you know how many children get there toes cut off every year by mower blades. I feel I need to introduce legislation that bans all forms of spinning blade mowers. Let's all get goats they're much safer, unless the goat gets out into the road and a car comes along and kills it. Oh no, ok let's ban all cars so we can save the goats.

 

I appreciate it, cdswans. Feel free to quote me.

 

The dirt-bag has turned himself in

 

That is a sad situation. The gun didn't do anything other than what it was directed to do. Had he not had a gun handy then he could have used other means to kill himself. A gun cannot point itself at a target. A gun cannot load itself. A gun cannot fire by itself. It takes a human hand to load, point and fire a gun. A gun is harmless until a human being picks it up and fires it.

He could have used a knife or even driven into another truck or off a mountain. If someone wants to do themselves harm, there is little that will stop them. The Japanese uses to commit hari kari which involved them throwing themselves onto their sword. People can poison themselves. Blaming this incident on a gun is ridiculous. It is a baseless argument that those who want to disarm this country use to falsely support their position. A gun is only the means to help them achieve their goal of self destruction. If a gun wasn't available there are many other options he could have used.

 

For an example of how well(I say that word sarcastically) gun control works, look at the UK and their gun control laws. Only farmers are legally allowed guns by special permit yet gun crimes are now on the rise in the UK. They have had 3 shootings, 1 was a mass shooting about a month and a half ago that killed like 12 of 15 people shot. It was a cabbie who went crazy and wasn't even supposed to have a gun. Yesterday, a guy got out of jail, grabbed a gun and proceeded to shoot his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. Killed the boyfriend, injured her(she's on life support and may not survive, per the family) and then shot a police officer who was on routine patrol and not even looking for him about 24 hours later. Cops aren't even allowed to carry guns unless they are on a SWAT unit so the cops are at an even greater risk with a dangerous suspect. The man is still at large. These incidents are on top of kids shooting kids over there now. Gun control doesn't work when the Black Market is readily available.

 

Malaki86 said:

Well, this is a valid (and impressive) argument, and I understand your point, but I think I must disagree. FIRST, it supposes that IT would have any MORE or any LESS control over us today than it does even WITH our gun rights... or that IT wants any more control.

Second, it supposes that the U.S. Military, if called to defend our government, would or could be beaten by a bunch of modern day revolutionaries led by Michelle Bachman! :lol: I just don't THINK so. [Heck, even the CSA armies couldn't defeat them.]

But, more importantly.... I never thought about it before, but recently I heard someone say that the amendments in the Bill of Rights are in order of importance (as considered by our founding fathers.) [I know, it's amazing sometimes what simple stuff escapes me.]

That would mean that the FIRST amendment was the TOP priority, and if you read it correctly.... it is LESS about freedom of speech than it is about freedom of religion. Our forefathers came here to escape RELIGIOUS control of their lives AND their "speech" in England. Their "liberties" were under legal AND military attack (so to speak) from England in the colonial times BEFORE the Revolution. But, they took up arms to rebel NOT so much against a military invasion, but against the constraints on their liberties of SPEECH and Religion. Against tyranny in general.

The 2nd Ammendment, is a result of the realization that those 1st amendment rights could not always (and specifically at the time) be protected without the use of arms. It is possible to believe that, had their protestations against the Crown been met with "acceptance," they might actually have made other laws concerning arms in America. In fact, they specifically mentioned the militia BECAUSE it had played such a prominent role in the fight for independence.

There was no mention of hunting rights (as were RESTRICTED in England,) or self preservation. I believe that BEFORE the revolution and constitution, the right to own firearms was NEVER in dispute (except by our English "masters.") And I don't dispute that right today. But, I believe the 2nd Amendment had a specific purpose, and that was to ensure that a "well regulated militia" would always be armed and available to protect the citizenry against ANY threat or incursion.

TODAY.... that threat is met in a very different way and the U.S. military and STATE National Guards are WELL ARMED for that purpose. However, that does not diminish the "unalienable right" of Americans to own arms, though the NARROW interpretation and specification IN the 2nd amendment does not preclude States or Municipalities from imposing "controls" on certain arms for reasons of safety.... ESPECIALLY when a majority of citizens affected have voted FOR such restrictions.

Assuming, of course, that they would WANT to. Or that, if they DID, you could stop the U.S. Military.

Um.... perhaps the CONSTITUTION??? You assume that without "defensive control" our own duly elected, representative government is AGAINST us. I just don't SEE it. That is why I say Y'all ( the collective Y'all,) are paranoid.

Besides.... NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS! :eek2::hellno:

It shouldn't! I just read the first 18 pages of the "ruling," and it doesn't really inhibit local ordinances of SOME type. Besides.... as much as I revere our founding fathers, I don't agree that they necessarily should have "first right of refusal" on any FREEDOM or decision I might want to make TODAY. It's like trying to live under the rules set down by my OWN father. They lived in a different time and a different America. They didn't believe in treating WOMEN and BLACKS as "whole persons." They CERTAINLY didn't have to deal with the type of gun crimes we experience TODAY!

Does it sound like I believe the Constitution is (or was intended to be) a LIVING DOCUMENT?? Perhaps, I do! New Jersey's Governor just amended THEIR state constitution to address the fiscal problems of TODAY. In fact, there have been something like 17 "new" amendments to our National Constitution since the Bill of Rights.

Don't get me wrong, Malakai. To some extent I agree with what you said.... and you said it very well. I just like to debate issues and specificaly the basis of opinions.

 

ironeagle_2006 said:

Give me a link and I'll "look." I'm not aware of ANYONE, not even gun control advocates, who is/are trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. To my knowlege, only ONE amendment has ever been repealed (prohibition.) I'm not aware of ANY proposed legislation to repeal ANY other amendment. Are YOU?

I will defer to your much more enthusiastic research into gun laws and history. But, I suspect that the "gang wars" you refer to were the Capone types and other gangs involved with illegal liqour sales. And without even googling, I suspect the TRUTH is something like this:

As a result of all the gangland shootings, often on public streets where INNOCENTS were caught in the crossfire and killed, by thugs using MACHINE GUNS (WMD's) and firing randomly and without constraint.... the PEOPLE got tired of it and PRESSURED FDR or other government officials to put an END to the "lawlessness" and carnage!

There was no "fear mongering" like DUBYA used to get us into 2 illegal wars! The PEOPLE actually WERE afraid of getting gunned down by mistake!

So much for GMAN's argument that there was less gun crime before registration laws! :lol:

So we know WHICH party cares about public safety and WHICH party is "owned" by the gun lobbies. :roll:

No, I'm NOT aware of that. I can't seem to find any PROOF of that by googling. Since you obviously HAVE googled it to back up your claim (and didn't just READ it in some email,) I'm SURE you can provide me with a link to PROVE your claim. :hellno:

But, on the ODD chance that you might be RIGHT (and not just full of CHIT as usual,) I will say that I would OPPOSE such a law.... and I have NO DOUBT that such a law could NEVER pass in congress!

Everyone KNOWS that deer hunters need at LEAST 5 shots to bring down a deer! :hellno::roll::rofl:

And there's probably not a single timid resident in Chicago that could hit an invader with a single shot revolver! :clap:

Put up or SHUT up Ironeagle! :roll: