47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Laws (479)
HealthyLiving: You have exactly made my point in that Gun Laws need to be left up to the individual STATES, which is what the origional post of this thread is exactly about. All STATES are NOT the same and we do not need to be told by a FEDERAL Government how to run our STATES!
HL
HL
Seems like you have an internal war going on.
If Americans can't agree on your own gunlaws,why post it on an International Forum, knowing full well it would cause controversy.
Surely the operative word here should be The United States of America
------ This thread is Archived ------
------ This thread is Archived ------
MICKEYMOST: Seems like you have an internal war going on.
If Americans can't agree on your own gunlaws,why post it on an International Forum, knowing full well it would cause controversy.
Surely the operative word here should be The United States of America
where would you post it?If Americans can't agree on your own gunlaws,why post it on an International Forum, knowing full well it would cause controversy.
Surely the operative word here should be The United States of America
------ This thread is Archived ------
HealthyLiving: Cholena ~ Can you READ???
Here, I will quote your quote to you and this time read it nice and slow and clear your mind and wait on the interpretation of what you just read so perhaps you will get it right this time. I am saying this in the most Comassionate way, not in meanness at all, okay?
"Thousands of gun owners across America have had enough of the Obama administration’s attack on the Second Amendment – and they’re preparing to take their concerns to the capitols in at least 47 states this Saturday at 12 p.m.
Texan Eric Reed, founder and national coordinator of the “Guns Across America” rallies, told WND he’s irritated about all the talk of new gun-control regulations and overreach by the federal government in violation of our Second Amendment rights.
“I was trying to figure out why people weren’t being more proactive about this, Reed said. “Then I realized I’m part of the problem. It takes somebody to stand up and say, ‘Hey, we’re not going to accept this. We’re against it.’
“We want Americans who feel the same way to come out. We want to stand up, be united and get our point across.”
Now, Thousands of gun owners across America ~ The would be the certain people in the 47 states would they not? Correct me if I am wrong please. So can you tell me where Tunnel Vision comes in to play here???“We want Americans who feel the same way to come out. We want to stand up, be united and get our point across.”
~ You are not invited to participate as you do not feel the same way. Why are you so upset? Many feel that these Laws should be left up to the individual STATES, not the Federal Government. I myself do not have a problem with properly introduced Legislation as I have stated in previous postings on this thread.
The Federal Government is putting it's nose into the STATES business and not All STATES are alike. We the People who live in these STATES have a voice in how are communities and our STATE is run. This is how our governments were designed.
The origional post of this thread is simply an invitation to those who would like to let their STATE Government know their concerns. I do not see any problem with this.
So settle down, take a deep breath, let it out and relax. It's no biggie!
Top o the day to you,
HL
I was very obviously referring to your thread title which clearly says "47 States Revolt Against Gun Laws."Here, I will quote your quote to you and this time read it nice and slow and clear your mind and wait on the interpretation of what you just read so perhaps you will get it right this time. I am saying this in the most Comassionate way, not in meanness at all, okay?
"Thousands of gun owners across America have had enough of the Obama administration’s attack on the Second Amendment – and they’re preparing to take their concerns to the capitols in at least 47 states this Saturday at 12 p.m.
Texan Eric Reed, founder and national coordinator of the “Guns Across America” rallies, told WND he’s irritated about all the talk of new gun-control regulations and overreach by the federal government in violation of our Second Amendment rights.
“I was trying to figure out why people weren’t being more proactive about this, Reed said. “Then I realized I’m part of the problem. It takes somebody to stand up and say, ‘Hey, we’re not going to accept this. We’re against it.’
“We want Americans who feel the same way to come out. We want to stand up, be united and get our point across.”
Now, Thousands of gun owners across America ~ The would be the certain people in the 47 states would they not? Correct me if I am wrong please. So can you tell me where Tunnel Vision comes in to play here???“We want Americans who feel the same way to come out. We want to stand up, be united and get our point across.”
~ You are not invited to participate as you do not feel the same way. Why are you so upset? Many feel that these Laws should be left up to the individual STATES, not the Federal Government. I myself do not have a problem with properly introduced Legislation as I have stated in previous postings on this thread.
The Federal Government is putting it's nose into the STATES business and not All STATES are alike. We the People who live in these STATES have a voice in how are communities and our STATE is run. This is how our governments were designed.
The origional post of this thread is simply an invitation to those who would like to let their STATE Government know their concerns. I do not see any problem with this.
So settle down, take a deep breath, let it out and relax. It's no biggie!
Top o the day to you,
HL
------ This thread is Archived ------
Nikogas: "cutestmiss: ‘“Very well said!!....WHEN will America get their head out their asses and start to do the right thing,your obsession with guns is scarily unhealthy!!!" How rude! I might ask you the same but I bet that is not politically correct. or......
There is nothing rude about it. I am an American and I agreew with her 100%! Americans (those who are so into guns) need to get over the obessiion with guns; it isn't just unhealthy, it is childish, foolish, and a whole host of other things: makes America look ridiculous to the rest of the world.------ This thread is Archived ------
HealthyLiving: She only listed one Southern State.
HL
HL
With reference to post 429:
The OP wanted to compare southern states vs. northern states.
I went through the whole thread and listed all the states of Americans that were in the thread at the time.
There was one person from Florida (a southern state).
------ This thread is Archived ------
Yes, I know, they did it here a couple of years ago, Now killing a certain race is a sport and enjoyable, especially when their weapons were taken away from them so they cant defend themselves.
dont know what they planning there in USA by taking everyones fireams from them.
dont know what they planning there in USA by taking everyones fireams from them.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I can't make the time to read all the responses, so if I'm doubling someone else, ignore me.
The title of the thread is a fraud, or at least extremely misleading.
Forty-seven states did NOT revolt against ANYTHING. A small group of citizens of forty-seven states have thus objected. So to start with, this is as foolish a title as if one were to similarly point out factually, that people from all FIFTY states, have spoken out in SUPPORT of more gun control laws.
As for why I suspect there hasn't been even more tumult, especially in advance of the announced suggestions for change, that would be because there are a surprising number of at least average intelligence people in the U.S (yes, even amongst the most intensely paranoid groups). I know that I don't myself have the time or energy to work actively to form or support political movements BEFORE there is an actual proposal to deal with.
As to the proposals themselves; most of them are actually attempts to REVIVE previous restrictions. The main new ideas I've heard, are to use the increased power of the internet to permit us to require checks be made by ALL sellers of firearms, and the suggestion to restrict availability of high capacity magazines.
I don't know if the first proposal is as possible to carry off as is described, I will have to wait to hear/read how they intend to carry it off. As to magazines, the only reasonable opposing thought I've heard so far, is that there are a few instances (certain kinds of vermin control situations)where exceptions would have to be made possible. So for that proposal, I can't see that 99.9% of Americans would even notice it was in place.
Finally, since we have had some form of gun control in place in the U.S. for all but the first years of it's existence, the repeated paranoid claim that any laws at all would lead to an end to democracy, or freedom, or the American way of life as we know it, is obviously nonsense.
Nor is any claim that the Second Amendment must "continue" to be held sacred, valid in any way, since it has NOT been held thus inviolate, pretty much from the time it was written. We have ALWAYS had restrictions on who could own certain things. As more weapons have been invented, and as we have progressed as a nation, we have had to make a number of adjustments to "the right to keep and bear arms." Therefore anyone who claims that any change at all, is the start of an inevitable run down a slippery slope, is speaking from near total ignorance of American History.
Now: when I see the exact proposals, I would be surprised if I didn't see problems, since finding a practical way to limit things that have been available to everyone for a very long time, is bound to be extremely difficult at best.
In the same way, I recognize in advance, that there really is no way, in the society we live in, to make sure of preventing any and all crimes of any kind. But since we also can't stop all crimes against property, and crimes of any other kind, by restricting either people or objects, the fact that some miscreants will always find a way to injure us, is NOT IN THE LEAST a valid reason to say that no effort should be made.
The title of the thread is a fraud, or at least extremely misleading.
Forty-seven states did NOT revolt against ANYTHING. A small group of citizens of forty-seven states have thus objected. So to start with, this is as foolish a title as if one were to similarly point out factually, that people from all FIFTY states, have spoken out in SUPPORT of more gun control laws.
As for why I suspect there hasn't been even more tumult, especially in advance of the announced suggestions for change, that would be because there are a surprising number of at least average intelligence people in the U.S (yes, even amongst the most intensely paranoid groups). I know that I don't myself have the time or energy to work actively to form or support political movements BEFORE there is an actual proposal to deal with.
As to the proposals themselves; most of them are actually attempts to REVIVE previous restrictions. The main new ideas I've heard, are to use the increased power of the internet to permit us to require checks be made by ALL sellers of firearms, and the suggestion to restrict availability of high capacity magazines.
I don't know if the first proposal is as possible to carry off as is described, I will have to wait to hear/read how they intend to carry it off. As to magazines, the only reasonable opposing thought I've heard so far, is that there are a few instances (certain kinds of vermin control situations)where exceptions would have to be made possible. So for that proposal, I can't see that 99.9% of Americans would even notice it was in place.
Finally, since we have had some form of gun control in place in the U.S. for all but the first years of it's existence, the repeated paranoid claim that any laws at all would lead to an end to democracy, or freedom, or the American way of life as we know it, is obviously nonsense.
Nor is any claim that the Second Amendment must "continue" to be held sacred, valid in any way, since it has NOT been held thus inviolate, pretty much from the time it was written. We have ALWAYS had restrictions on who could own certain things. As more weapons have been invented, and as we have progressed as a nation, we have had to make a number of adjustments to "the right to keep and bear arms." Therefore anyone who claims that any change at all, is the start of an inevitable run down a slippery slope, is speaking from near total ignorance of American History.
Now: when I see the exact proposals, I would be surprised if I didn't see problems, since finding a practical way to limit things that have been available to everyone for a very long time, is bound to be extremely difficult at best.
In the same way, I recognize in advance, that there really is no way, in the society we live in, to make sure of preventing any and all crimes of any kind. But since we also can't stop all crimes against property, and crimes of any other kind, by restricting either people or objects, the fact that some miscreants will always find a way to injure us, is NOT IN THE LEAST a valid reason to say that no effort should be made.
------ This thread is Archived ------
IgorFrankensteen: I can't make the time to read all the responses, so if I'm doubling someone else, ignore me.
The title of the thread is a fraud, or at least extremely misleading.
Forty-seven states did NOT revolt against ANYTHING. A small group of citizens of forty-seven states have thus objected. So to start with, this is as foolish a title as if one were to similarly point out factually, that people from all FIFTY states, have spoken out in SUPPORT of more gun control laws.
As for why I suspect there hasn't been even more tumult, especially in advance of the announced suggestions for change, that would be because there are a surprising number of at least average intelligence people in the U.S (yes, even amongst the most intensely paranoid groups). I know that I don't myself have the time or energy to work actively to form or support political movements BEFORE there is an actual proposal to deal with.
As to the proposals themselves; most of them are actually attempts to REVIVE previous restrictions. The main new ideas I've heard, are to use the increased power of the internet to permit us to require checks be made by ALL sellers of firearms, and the suggestion to restrict availability of high capacity magazines.
I don't know if the first proposal is as possible to carry off as is described, I will have to wait to hear/read how they intend to carry it off. As to magazines, the only reasonable opposing thought I've heard so far, is that there are a few instances (certain kinds of vermin control situations)where exceptions would have to be made possible. So for that proposal, I can't see that 99.9% of Americans would even notice it was in place.
Finally, since we have had some form of gun control in place in the U.S. for all but the first years of it's existence, the repeated paranoid claim that any laws at all would lead to an end to democracy, or freedom, or the American way of life as we know it, is obviously nonsense.
Nor is any claim that the Second Amendment must "continue" to be held sacred, valid in any way, since it has NOT been held thus inviolate, pretty much from the time it was written. We have ALWAYS had restrictions on who could own certain things. As more weapons have been invented, and as we have progressed as a nation, we have had to make a number of adjustments to "the right to keep and bear arms." Therefore anyone who claims that any change at all, is the start of an inevitable run down a slippery slope, is speaking from near total ignorance of American History.
Now: when I see the exact proposals, I would be surprised if I didn't see problems, since finding a practical way to limit things that have been available to everyone for a very long time, is bound to be extremely difficult at best.
In the same way, I recognize in advance, that there really is no way, in the society we live in, to make sure of preventing any and all crimes of any kind. But since we also can't stop all crimes against property, and crimes of any other kind, by restricting either people or objects, the fact that some miscreants will always find a way to injure us, is NOT IN THE LEAST a valid reason to say that no effort should be made.
The title of the thread is a fraud, or at least extremely misleading.
Forty-seven states did NOT revolt against ANYTHING. A small group of citizens of forty-seven states have thus objected. So to start with, this is as foolish a title as if one were to similarly point out factually, that people from all FIFTY states, have spoken out in SUPPORT of more gun control laws.
As for why I suspect there hasn't been even more tumult, especially in advance of the announced suggestions for change, that would be because there are a surprising number of at least average intelligence people in the U.S (yes, even amongst the most intensely paranoid groups). I know that I don't myself have the time or energy to work actively to form or support political movements BEFORE there is an actual proposal to deal with.
As to the proposals themselves; most of them are actually attempts to REVIVE previous restrictions. The main new ideas I've heard, are to use the increased power of the internet to permit us to require checks be made by ALL sellers of firearms, and the suggestion to restrict availability of high capacity magazines.
I don't know if the first proposal is as possible to carry off as is described, I will have to wait to hear/read how they intend to carry it off. As to magazines, the only reasonable opposing thought I've heard so far, is that there are a few instances (certain kinds of vermin control situations)where exceptions would have to be made possible. So for that proposal, I can't see that 99.9% of Americans would even notice it was in place.
Finally, since we have had some form of gun control in place in the U.S. for all but the first years of it's existence, the repeated paranoid claim that any laws at all would lead to an end to democracy, or freedom, or the American way of life as we know it, is obviously nonsense.
Nor is any claim that the Second Amendment must "continue" to be held sacred, valid in any way, since it has NOT been held thus inviolate, pretty much from the time it was written. We have ALWAYS had restrictions on who could own certain things. As more weapons have been invented, and as we have progressed as a nation, we have had to make a number of adjustments to "the right to keep and bear arms." Therefore anyone who claims that any change at all, is the start of an inevitable run down a slippery slope, is speaking from near total ignorance of American History.
Now: when I see the exact proposals, I would be surprised if I didn't see problems, since finding a practical way to limit things that have been available to everyone for a very long time, is bound to be extremely difficult at best.
In the same way, I recognize in advance, that there really is no way, in the society we live in, to make sure of preventing any and all crimes of any kind. But since we also can't stop all crimes against property, and crimes of any other kind, by restricting either people or objects, the fact that some miscreants will always find a way to injure us, is NOT IN THE LEAST a valid reason to say that no effort should be made.
Trust me, you didn't repeat anything and what you did write is interesting. Your post was very well written but I guess you know that.
Hi, I'm Monte
------ This thread is Archived ------
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: where would you post it?
I wouldn't.
Far too controversial,and not an International problem.
------ This thread is Archived ------
MICKEYMOST: I wouldn't. Far too controversial,and not an International problem.
Guns are not a problem here. It's the wackos that are the problems. I'm sure everyone everywhere has wackos.
------ This thread is Archived ------
galrads: Jk.... you never disappoint me. "smguns". What's that? Semi-Metal guns. Yea, someone will try banning that too.
this thread is so annoying..... 
why doesn't someone just shoot it down...... 
and galrads I am so happy to meet your expectations of me.....
------ This thread is Archived ------
JeanKimberley: this thread is so annoying..... why doesn't someone just shoot it down......
and galrads I am so happy to meet your expectations of me.....
and galrads I am so happy to meet your expectations of me.....
Tuuduuhhhhhhhh !
------ This thread is Archived ------
galrads: Guns are not a problem here. It's the wackos that are the problems. I'm sure everyone everywhere has wackos.
Well seeing as they are not a problem ,they sure as hell do a lot of unnecessary damage to mankind.
Mother of a child ,who knows he has mental problems ,owns 5 guns and teaches him how to use them. wtf!
I'm out of here .No more room for discussion,if ever there was.
------ This thread is Archived ------
On having a weapon:
TEACHER: George Washington not only chopped down his father's cherry tree, but also admitted it. Now, do you know why his father didn't punish him?
STUDENT: Because George still had the ax in his hand.....
TEACHER: George Washington not only chopped down his father's cherry tree, but also admitted it. Now, do you know why his father didn't punish him?
STUDENT: Because George still had the ax in his hand.....
------ This thread is Archived ------
Some years ago a guy kicked in the side door of my home.I was also pregnant at the time too.Anyhow,While I'm on the phone to 911 police dispatch the guy walks down the basement stairs and comes up with some computer stuff etc and proceeds to walk out the door.He comes back in and heads downstairs and the whole while the dispatcher is asking me questions.I asked her why hasn't she had a police car sent out cause the guy is still in my home.She told me that unless I answered her questions she wasn't going to send someone out and she would hang up.
Luckily for me the guy did leave and two hours later a squad car did show up.And to show just how stupid the police officer was.He looked at the door and said "Oh I see the crack and the footprint."
My late husband had told the police that since he knew who the person was and had sold some computer stuff to that guy that he was going to go and retrive the items which the guy had taken from our home.The police told my late husband that if he were to go anywhere near the guy that broke into our home that they would put him in jail.That it was all civil and my late husband would have to take the guy to court.
If I would've had a gun at my disposal I know I would've shot him since the police refused to do anything.I found out later that he did carry what was referred to back then was a thumb gun.
The way things are and the victims had no real rights back then I probably would've been hauled off to jail for defending myself.
I found out back then that you can't always depend on the authories coming to your aid when you need them.
Public places that have Gun Free Zone signs are just sending the wrong message to the bad guys.
It would be like if I post a sign outside my home saying I don't have a way to defend myself so come and break in.
Luckily for me the guy did leave and two hours later a squad car did show up.And to show just how stupid the police officer was.He looked at the door and said "Oh I see the crack and the footprint."
My late husband had told the police that since he knew who the person was and had sold some computer stuff to that guy that he was going to go and retrive the items which the guy had taken from our home.The police told my late husband that if he were to go anywhere near the guy that broke into our home that they would put him in jail.That it was all civil and my late husband would have to take the guy to court.
If I would've had a gun at my disposal I know I would've shot him since the police refused to do anything.I found out later that he did carry what was referred to back then was a thumb gun.
The way things are and the victims had no real rights back then I probably would've been hauled off to jail for defending myself.
I found out back then that you can't always depend on the authories coming to your aid when you need them.
Public places that have Gun Free Zone signs are just sending the wrong message to the bad guys.
It would be like if I post a sign outside my home saying I don't have a way to defend myself so come and break in.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I just love these foreigners discussing our U.S. Constitution, when they have not got a clue of what it means to live in a free society. Our 2nd amendment right is an "Inherent Right", under the constitution. The 2nd amendment only guarantees that right, not grants it. The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment with the wording that all colonist "citizens", shall have the inherent right to have and bear arms of the same caliber as the well formed federal and state militia's. This is to ensure protection from the tyranny of ones government. I would suggest all Americans to read the U.S. Constitution and all the Bill of Rights, to include the founding fathers remarks. Educate yourself and be informed.
------ This thread is Archived ------
still doesn't mean that the Majority can curtail any Rights!
If it were so,those Rights would be mere privileges and not worth the paper they were written on!
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny.
and that Right exists whether they,the Politicians take it out of the Constitution or not!
It is not theirs to give in the first place,since they are not the Originators of those Rights!
<<<<<<
Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.
The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.
For the New Intellectual
Galt’s Speech,
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Sleepy Don!
Feel Good Music
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
wanting beyond need
the way you look
your personality
The Best of the GOP
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Ladies
men's perspective towards women
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
These examples mean little, very little. They only show what the extremist minority think. If gun control laws were put to a national vote, the majority, who are for more gun control, would out vote the minority who do not want any restrictions put on gun ownership.
You have exactly made my point in that Gun Laws need to be left up to the individual STATES, which is what the origional post of this thread is exactly about. All STATES are NOT the same and we do not need to be told by a FEDERAL Government how to run our STATES!
HL