Bang, bang shoot'em up 1, 2, 3!
 

"The Supreme Court ruled for the first time Monday that the Second Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates who have chafed at federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership. "

Gun rights case: Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

It's pretty scary to think we were just ONE vote away from it going the other way. :eek1: The vote should have been 9-0. :patriot:

Some of these people apparently still cannot read the Constitution. :mad: I can't help but wonder what would have happened if this new nominee for a supreme jurist would do if given the same choice. She has no track record and no one really knows how she would rule on certain issues. My guess is that she will be confirmed.

I dunno that she will be confirmed, the Libs and Conservatives have a lot of questions about her past. She claims she will give everything a fair view and be impartial...........................Unfortunately her past shows she is more like a weasel/politician who will say one thing while doing the opposite.

I've seen articles today saying she leans towards the Constitution being a "living" document....I take that to mean she believes it is subject to change if it fits an agenda.

It sounds like Al Gore. I heard a little bit of the hearings when she was questioned by one Senator. He asked her if she thought that the Commerce Clause allowed the government to tell the American people what they can eat. She NEVER answered his question. :hellno:

One of the neighbors, here in FL, carries a single-shot .25 in his shirt pocket. It looks like a ball point pen, and has a 1 1/2 inch barrel. He also does have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Now, want to hear the real surprise?

He's been checked out by cops 4 different times, and they did not see it in his shirt pocket. They checked all his other pockets and wrists and pant-legs, but never looked in his shirt pocket.:lol:

He's also the one that told me about the supreme court ruling. And, I agree that it should have been 9-0 in favor.

It's a bit odd, though. You now have more of a right to carry a weapon, than to have a driver's license.:roll:

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. 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? They could do as they please.

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!!!

How so? Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to operate a vehicle? A drivers license is a privilege, not a right.

One thing to add to this - I do believe in the control of firearms, meaning who can have them. I also believe that there needs to be a tighter background check, as well as mandatory safety/training classes associated with carrying and owning a weapon.

The only thing that the government controls with gun control laws are law abiding citizens. These feel good laws do nothing to make people safer. These laws do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns. All they do is raise revenue for the government and tell them who owns guns and where to go to get them when the time comes. That is what registration does. Until recent years we never had the number of gun related deaths and we didn't have to register our guns, take training courses or buy permits to carry a gun. We don't have a gun problem. We have a morality problem. Guns don't act on their own. Someone MUST pull the trigger. If you eliminated all the guns in this country people would still be killing other people. If you then got rid of all the knives you would not prevent people from killing other people. In fact, if you got rid of all the things that can be used as a weapon you still will not prevent people from killing. They will still be able to use their hands to kill. Gun control doesn't work to reduce crime. We have seen that through out history. States that have had the strongest gun control laws have the highest violent crime. States that have the least restrictions on gun ownership have the lowest violent crime rates. Until the real reason for violence is addressed we can expect to see more violent crime.

Morals are taught by parents, not the government. Until parents start parenting again, I don't expect to see any reduction in violent crime. If gun control worked then we should not have any violent crimes. When I grew up we didn't have all these ridiculous gun control laws. Everyone I knew had guns in the home, and there was no need to keep them locked up. In fact, most homes weren't even locked back then. According to some people we should all have been running around killing one another. The reality is that we were taught morals by our parents and that there were some things that we didn't do, such as shoot people because we didn't like them or what they said. We were taught that guns were used for hunting and self protection.

Gun control doesn't work. Gun control will NEVER work. If the government can succeed in brainwashing people to believe that the only way that they can be safe is to take guns away from everyone, then we will be in serious trouble. It won't stop crime. It will not prevent criminals from having and using guns. It will also not keep an over zealous government from using THEIR guns on the citizenry. By the way, there is NOTHING in the Constitution which allows the government to control or regulate guns or gun ownership. They have successfully used the "Commerce Clause" to control many things which they are not Constitutionally allowed to regulate.

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.

Driving is a right . . as in freedom of assembly. And, yes, a driver's license is a privilege. It all comes down to how you choose to assert your rights: as an individual or to allow your rights to be managed by the state. Most choose the state because they don't know any better, many because of the convenience but a few tell the cops to go s-h-i-t in their hats and then go beat them up in court.

For those of us that engage in interstate commerce, we have no choice, by choice. Congress is specifically tasked to regulate interstate commerce and, as mentioned above, they've now come to interpret that to mean they can tell us what to eat. They all need to go and we need to start fresh. RIP Burn'em Bob "KKK" Byrd.*


*That could be misconstrued as a tribute. I assure any and all, it is not.

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 don't believe the government should decide who has the right to own or not own a gun for several reasons. As stated before, if a criminal wants a gun, passing a law isn't going to stop them, they're already illegal. Gun control is only going to control the legal and law abiding citizen and prevent them from defending themselves. I know some people believe guns kill people, but that's not true, people kill people. People have been killing each other since neanderthal man could pick up a rock. If someone wants to kill someone, they don't need a gun to do it. In 1981 Morton Grove, Illinois banned guns and their crime rate went through the roof because no criminal was afraid for their lives when they mugged someone or robbed their homes, they knew no guns were going to be present. In response to this, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring a gun with ammunition to be in every home. The crime dropped immediately, imagine that.

Mandatory Gun Law A Proven Success
Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law | Reuters

Few people in this world are going to risk their lives over a material possession if they no the likely hood of them being shot is astronomical. In contrast, they are not going to worry about losing their lives if the likely hood of them getting away with it is astronomical as well. I could not find the statistical information on Morton Grove too fast, like I had planned, but the numbers for Kennesaw are in those articles. Anyway, thats just my $0.02

But, you have no problem with government FORCING you to own a lethal weapon? Keep it in your house with children present?

I know.... I know.... people had the CHOICE to give up their homes and move away. :roll:

Seriously, I'm taking it to the extreme to prove a point. How are a people FREE, if the government (local or otherwise) can FORCE them to own a gun? How would they enforce such a law? ILLEGAL search? Waterboarding to overcome a person's 5th Ammendment right not to incriminate himself?

Now.... from the article in Reuters....

So, with population growth, the PERCENTAGE of households that were armed went DOWN.... and so did crime. Hmmm.... :hellno:

So, in other words..... the law is basically neutered and ineffective. They DIDN'T really force every household to be armed. In fact, at 50% participation rate, I'd say they are no different than MANY southern towns.

So, I wonder what the POLICE Lieutenant really thinks caused the crime rate to stay low?

Well.... who would have THUNK it? :whistle:

Ah yes..... there are indeed still a few FREE Americans in that town! ;)

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. :cool:

I believe they had two young sons.

Quite obviously, in an agitated state, he didn't think about the round in the chamber. The fact that he ejected the magazine indicates that he actually had no intention of taking his life. The higher the emotions, the greater the likelyhood of making a mistake. Storing a weapon with a round in the chamber is not very smart to begin with. Things happen much too easily even without the emotions running wild.

Some years back, there was a program on TV titled "WISE GUY". It ended when the star of the show, jokingly, put one of the state-prop handguns to his head and pulled the trigger. He knew full well that they were loaded with blanks. He did not know that the expanding gasses from a blank, with the end of the barrel in contact with the skin, is just as lethal as any other round. Those gasses go through the skin and pulverize the tissues inside. He was killed instantly... For a joke. Doesn't mean he wanted to die.

A man drops the magazine out of the weapon, suggests he did not plan to die either. Weapons education and anger management would have been key there.

I must apologize....I believe my point wasn't clear. I wasn't advocating the actual law of forcing everyone to own a gun. I do not believe that is right either. I believe forcing someone to own a gun should be unconstitutional just as much as forcing someone not to. I was merely stating that by knowing your chances of entering a house that possesses a gun has risen, the likely hood of making an illegal entrance to that house would diminish. I agree with your statement that the percentage of homes who posses a gun is probably similar to that of any southern town, the difference is, that is not just any southern town. Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta, which is obviously a fairly large city. It is not quite as large as say New York, Chicago, or LA obviously, but its not small either. Kennesaw, isn't a little backwoods southern town where you would expect every home to have a hunter living there, it is a prominent community. The crime rate, theoretically due to location, should be higher than that of say, Bainbridge, GA. Like I said, my point was merely that if you know you are in a town where not possessing a gun is illegal, whether enforced or not, then you know that by breaking into a law abiding citizens house, you have doubled your chances of NOT walking out, you probably won't go in.

GMAN said:

Can you? The second ammendment does not JUST say that the right of the people to bear arms cannot be abridged. There is a "qualifying" phrase preceding those words. It has to do with a MILITIA, which was an 18th century necessity.

Now, I'm not going to debate what a Militia means, or what our founding fathers meant by it. I'm just going to point out that there were TWO clauses to that ammendment. IF the ONLY purpose was to secure the right of the people to own and bear arms, they wouldn't have needed to even MENTION the "militia."

In fact.... given the "anti tyrannical" rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence, and the general "concern" against tyranny of the day, and especially by our forefathers, wouldn't it be "logical" that gun ownership would have been included in the ORIGINAL Constitution? And, if not... wouldn't it have been SPECIFICALLY outlined in the 2nd ammendment WITHOUT any "explanatory phrase?"

Ammendment ONE: Freedom of religion and freedom of speech INCLUDING a free PRESS.

Ammendment Two: The right to own and bear arms by the citizens is a fundamental right. (they didn't SAY that, did they? They included the clause that the RATIONALE for such a right was the need for a MILITIA to protect the states (particularly the frontier states) from foreign incursion.

WHERE in the 2nd Ammendment does it mention TYRANNY? WHERE does it show their "so-called" concern about defending the people from their OWN government?

Now, I'm NOT against the right to own firearms by the citizenry. But, I'm against the USE of the 2nd Ammendment to rationalize the use of ANY kind of arms, and I'm CERTAINLY against the propaganda of the day that says that our government wants to take your guns, and that you NEED them (NOT to hunt deer) but to protect yourselves from your government.

What is "special" about our country is that we change our government by the VOTE... and NOT by revolution or military resistance. Take up ARMS against our government... and you make us no better than the third world countries that you despise.

Are you afraid of the boogeyman under the bed? Geezus! She is replacing another LIBERAL on the court. NOTHING will change (for now.) It is STILL a 5 to 4 "party line" court! If you need a reason to "quake" at night.... just pray one of the Conservative judges doesn't DIE during the Obama administration!

Yes... but still, you prove my point. The man didn't MEAN to kill himself. So... the PEOPLE didn't kill the PEOPLE.... the GUN did! :roll:

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 have to deal with that question. I don't.

And while we're at it... I'm sick of this argument about protecting yourselves from government tyranny! Unless the military joins with YOU... you will LOSE! [And they WON'T!]

What part of WACO don't you understand? :confused:

NO President has EVER challenged the 2nd Ammendment right to own a gun for HOME defense or hunting! And NONE have made any indication that they wanted to take them away from you!

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:

Take a CHILL PILL and go back to mowing your yard! :pissedoff:

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. :D

Besides.... NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS! :eek2::hellno::roll3:

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:

That Statement he made in the IL Senate as a restriction he wanted to put on the FOID cards anyone that wants to own a Firearm in this CHITHOLE state has to get. So his Views are well known anything that can fire more than one round before needing to be RELOADED is an Assault Rifle in his Eyes. BTW Hobo Frankilin Roosevlet is the Reason all Presidents are Restricted to 2 terms. He also tried to get 4 more Justices on the Supreme court in IIRC 1937 to keep 90% of the crap he passed LEGAL. He is Not the Super President you make him out to be. History has shown his policies EXTENDED the Great Depression 8 years longer than it needed to last. We had the same problem in 1919 after the First War the Economy Tanked. How was it Handled then We cut Spending Taxes and look what happened the Roaring Twenties. BTW the Economic Crisis of 1919 made the Great Depression look like NOTHING yet we were out of it as a nation in less than 2 years.

HOBO SAID:

The U.S. Military probably would be able to defend our government against a civilian uprising, however, England thought the same thing and thus the US was born. Also, you are forgetting one major thing, a lot of the military would be torn on which side to fight. They would feel allegiance to their nation obviously, but at the same time your military members are probably the largest statistical owners of guns. If the even only half of the military opted on the civilian side, that cuts the force to protect the government down to roughly a little over 1 million people, however, the "army" that would rise up against it would be much much larger. Considering the military would likely not use large grade weapons against a mostly unarmed civilian population of any country let alone itself, by sheer numbers, the civilian force most likely would be able to overrun the government.

You must have gotten the "email." :roll:

Read the rest of the debunking here:

Obama’s Gun Ban? | FactCheck.org

Got to agree with Hobo, the loop I'm in, not a peep on any gun rights being taken away nationally. If there were the NRA would be screaming bloody murder right now. Sounds like the same BS that went on when Obama was elected, a rumor got started that he was going to take away guns and ammo so people ran out and bought everything they could. It was probably the gun makers themselves who started the rumor.

Just put my new NRA decal on today!!

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/t...1/100_0433.jpg

You know, Hobo, sometimes, when I read your posts, I'm reminded of a politician at a news conference. One that is well versed, but every once in a while, gets a question out of the blue that he hasn't looked up.:lol:

Windwalker said:

Contrary to what you MAY have meant, I'll take that as a compliment. But, pray tell.... WHAT makes you think I haven't considered EVERY question that could be raised? :hellno:;)

In MOST cases, I already KNOW what is possibly TRUE and what is BS as soon as I read the post. I just prefer NOT to CALL B.S. until I've researched to prove MY point. :smokin:

It does HELP however, to KNOW that MOST arguments posted here are UNFOUNDED, and that MY opinions are basically RIGHT.... and can be proved to BE so! :lol2:

So, I have a certain "freedom" to be as "conceited" as so many think I AM! :lol:

Seriously... I LOVE the "battle." I AM occaisionally taken aback by some of the "off the wall" statements that I need to refute. But, I have NO DOUBT that I can find an answer or rebuttal.

IF the members of CAD ever present an argument worth deferring to... I WILL defer! [and HAVE!] But, since MOST of them are Conservatives.... I'm not too worried. ;):lol:

[Vito DOES scare me a bit, though. When HE speaks.... E.F. Hutton listens! :lol: ]

razorwyr said:

No need to apologize man. Your point was clear. I just like to look at the other side of the coin. BTW.... if your post count is not indicative of a "MULT," then you are a newbie here.... and you are MOST welcome! I... for one... like to hear from intelligent posters who can make their point (as you do.) You qualify. Are you a DRIVER? It's okay if you're not. We just like to know about the "participants" here. ;)

And THAT was my point. If the constitution gives us freedom to bear arms, it cannot then take that FREEDOM away by enforcing gun ownership. It is a FACT that our founding fathers actually passed legislation REQUIRING every eligible male to BEAR ARMS and be "inscripted into" a militia at the time. What the FRUCK??? That is the same as the "DRAFT" which has been outlawed TODAY! :eek2:

The "kennesaw Law" is an interesting "case" to be decided by the Supreme Court as clearly as is the D.C. or Chicago handgun BAN laws!

That IS an interesting possibility. But, as Windy and GMAN like to say.... Criminals don't really CARE about consequences! IF, as they say, criminals don't consider the possibilty of long term PRISON sentences before committing a (gun related) crime.... I DOUBT they really consider that some "armed" civilian is going to overcome and KILL them! I'm no criminal psychiatrist.... but, I believe they feel "invincible" and no LAW and NO VICTIM is going to get the best of them!

Well, you got THAT right. My sister and her family used to LIVE in Kennesaw... for several years. I've been there. Not just driving through in a truck, but actually spending time there. It's an "upwardly mobile" community. GUN crme is not a major concern there. There MAY have BEEN some, which caused some politicians to press for this ENFORCED armament law.... but, as the report showed, it didn't TAKE.... and it wasn't necessary! And according to the Police Lt..... it wasn't a FACTOR in reducing crime rates! So much for THIS "icon" of Republican gun policy and propaganda! :roll3::hellno:

And I'm sorry, but I find this whole line of logic to be IL-logical! The crime rate, especially concerning breakins, is probably HIGHER in suburban areas, NOT because the criminals expect LESS "armed opposition"... but, because they expect RICHER rewards! NO criminal actually fears an "accoutant with a gun!" :lol:

The fact that the crime rate in Kennesaw went down has MORE to do wth increased policing due to the pressures placed on the local government by "richer" constituents. Believe me.... I've been there. RICH communities get better policing, and lower crime, and it has NOTHING to do with personal gun rights, or some unenforcable law REQUIRING gun ownership!

SOME on your side are grasping at straws! They are SO DESPERATE to justify a right they ALREADY HAVE.... that they make up LIES to support their position... and accuse my president of insurrection against the Constitution!

I must say that, as much as i love these debates.... I really don't understand their "derangement" over the 2nd Amendment! There are nine others that INSIST on the rights of the individual, and many more that came after, yet they FEAR that the entirity of the Constituion, and it's validity in American life today, is dependent on that ONE ammendment! :roll:

Lest I haven't said it lately.... and Y'all haven't HEARD our president affirm it lately.... NO ONE in the U.S. government has ANY intention of taking away your GUNS! :eek1:

Now... can we PLEASE start talking about things that are IMPORTANT to our preservation as a nation??? :roll3:

Email i got today. I thought of Obamahobo :lol:


> FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

> 1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."~Thomas Jefferson
> 2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams
> 3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
> 4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
> 5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
> 6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
> 8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
> 9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
> 10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
> 11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
> 12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
> 13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
> 14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
> 15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
> 16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
> 17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Yes, Rosty.... I DO! THAT was the true "foundation" of our country. Instead of "taxation without representation" from the British Crown, we set up a "representative" government, where everyone has a right to vote...even if only for a LOCAL representative... and one to send to Congress.

Now, I am not blind to the way special interest groups, PACs, and now ANY big business (thanks to the ruling of the Supreme Conservative Court) can spend unlimited money trying to BUY the votes of our representatives..... but, that doesn't mean the PEOPLE can't wise up and put a stop to it!

But, it can be done by THE VOTE. There is no need for armed insurrection in OUR country. We are not like many third World countries that live under TRUE "tyranny." WE have changed our government MANY times in recent years through the vote.... and there is NO reason to believe that process should fail us NOW.

We kicked NIXON out of power thru the representative VOTE. We replaced Carter with a simple vote of "no confidence." We dumped Bush Sr. for reasons of "representative" displeasure. We "changed" directions with a popular swelling to elect Clinton (TWICE!)

And THEN the system was corrupted when we "selected" Dubya.... AGAINST the popular VOTE..... in 2000, and "re-selected" him 4 years later thanks to fear mongering AND some cheating!

But, AFTER that debacle.... we AGAIN changed the direction of our nation thru the "popular" (and Electoral college) vote.... by a landslide, in electing President Obama.

Now... you can have YOUR opinion on EACH of those changes.... as do I.... but, you cannot say we didn't MAKE those changes by the VOTE... and NOT by armed insurrection against our FLAG!!

The day America decides an election based on anything BUT the popular or electoral (representative) VOTE.... is the day we ABDICATE our moral high ground in the World!

This doesn't mean I don't SEE powers of influence in our elections. DUBYA PROVED that! But, I STILL believe that .... for some stupid reason.... we are able to CHANGE our form and focus of government every 4 years.... through the VOTE!