Bang, bang shoot'em up 1, 2, 3!
#21
07-03-2010, 11:53 PM
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
__________________
The orignal Ironeagle2006 Yes I am BACK.
#23
07-04-2010, 12:23 AM
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.
__________________
START FRESH. GET INVOLVED LOCALLY. SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE. NO INCUMBANTS. VOTE THE BUMS OUT! Last edited by cdswans; 07-04-2010 at 12:31 AM.
#24
07-04-2010, 12:42 AM
There is NO doubt that the man didn't MEAN to kill himself. His wife certainly didn't want to kill him. So.... what was the "variable?" A loaded GUN!
Again I say.... I am NOT against people owning a gun! I am against these RIDICULOUS arguments that the NRA and "others" use to justify gun ownership. If you WANT to have the right to own a gun... FINE! But, PLEASE quit telling me that they are no more dangerous than a baseball bat! :hellno:
Yes, people kill people! With ALL kinds of instruments. But... GUNS DO kill people! CHILDREN die from playing with guns! Wives die from domestic violence when a gun is in the house.
I guess the question is... is YOUR "Right" more important than a child's life?
You can't save an idiot from himself hobo.
So WHY, for the sake of child safety, or some OTHER crime related reason, won't you COMPROMISE with some kind of gun control?
There is ONLY one reason! You're a bunch of PARANOID rightwing conservatives who think "WE" are out to GET you! :hellno:
Others believe we need laws to save us from ourselves.
Take a CHILL PILL and go back to mowing your yard!
 issedoff:
#25
07-04-2010, 12:51 AM
GMAN, I salute you. Post 13,335 is, in my humble opinion, your finest ever on this site. I raise my glass (plastic Pilot 2 for $3 Aquafina) and Salute you again. Cheers!
I own the domain 2AGUN.COM. Your post has motivated me to finally do something with it and anything I do with it, I would like to use your quote. I appreciate it, cdswans. Feel free to quote me.
#26
07-04-2010, 01:02 AM
I agree. Just the other day, in Tampa, two officers were shot and killed by a guy that, according to gun control laws, should not have been anywhere near a gun. Last I heard, they are still looking for him. The girl that was driving the car was taken in a questioned, but the shooter is still at large.
Gun control laws certainly did stop the officers from being killed, didn't they. IF they don't care about other laws, what makes you think they're going to abide by gun control laws? It's one of the reasons that, now in the State of Florida, you do not have to have them dead inside your house. If they are threatening you, you can shoot them in the middle of the street. Of course, not very many homeowners have a gun within reach when they're outside of the house. But, one guy did shoot two in the street, and was back home about 20 minutes later. No charges filed against him. I say that we have enough controls. We need better enforcement of the laws we have. There's a black market out there and it's thriving. Enforcement can not keep up with it. The dirt-bag has turned himself in
__________________
http://fredogtrucking.proboards.com
#27
07-04-2010, 01:16 AM
The best friend of my co-driver's brother was having an arguement with his wife last weekend. He screamed at her, "See? this is what you do to me.... you drive me CRAZY!"
While saying that, he picked up his loaded gun, dropped the magazine into his hand, put the gun to his head... and pulled the trigger. Any questions? I have a hard time believing he could have accidentally bashed his own brains out with a baseball bat.  I believe they had two young sons. 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.
#28
07-04-2010, 03:47 AM
I agree. Just the other day, in Tampa, two officers were shot and killed by a guy that, according to gun control laws, should not have been anywhere near a gun. Last I heard, they are still looking for him. The girl that was driving the car was taken in a questioned, but the shooter is still at large.
Gun control laws certainly did stop the officers from being killed, didn't they. IF they don't care about other laws, what makes you think they're going to abide by gun control laws? It's one of the reasons that, now in the State of Florida, you do not have to have them dead inside your house. If they are threatening you, you can shoot them in the middle of the street. Of course, not very many homeowners have a gun within reach when they're outside of the house. But, one guy did shoot two in the street, and was back home about 20 minutes later. No charges filed against him. I say that we have enough controls. We need better enforcement of the laws we have. There's a black market out there and it's thriving. Enforcement can not keep up with it.
#29
07-04-2010, 07:35 AM
Malaki86 said:
When it comes to the Constitution, the 2nd amendment is, by far, the most important of all of our rights. Why? Without it, the government would have total control over the people.
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.
With the people having the right to keep and bear arms, it keeps the government from completely running over the rest of our rights.
If the government took away the peoples right to bear arms, what would prevent them from then taking away our right to free speech? What about illegal search and seizure?
 Besides.... NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS! :eek2::hellno: 
This ruling actually gives me hope that there's still a few people out there that understand and believe in the rights of the American people as laid down by our founding fathers!!!
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. 
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#30
07-04-2010, 08:30 AM
ironeagle_2006 said:
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.
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:
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 Assault rifle under what Obama wants to propose. He wants to propose that any weapon that can fire more than one round before being RELOADED is an assault rifle. He stated that many times in the IL senate.
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:
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev. |
