Video warns Obama: People will fight for guns (137)
felixis99: I doubt his policies will affect hunters or anyone with a LEGITMATE purposeonce again
You choose to doubt, not I.
The second amendment is about protecting citizens against government gone bad. If the government wants to protect children in gun free zones, it needs to focus on the mental health issue and securing schools and other gun free zones.
Once again
------ This thread is Archived ------
OkieChic: sad thing is I don't think the Obama administration realizes just how strong the South and other gun rights activist is...
always love your posts!!
always love your posts!!
obama has no balls! elsewhere in the world heads-of-states every now and then REWRITE OLD DECREES... he wouldnt dare change a dot! hes meek! too meek. How the hell is he supposed to kick the hand that feeds him...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Nationwide plan for gun confiscation exposed
------ This thread is Archived ------
galrads: there is no gun problem there is definitely a mental health issue though for those that kill and for those wanting to leave people defenseless
Talk about burying your head in the sand.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Glatlol: Talk about burying your head in the sand.
quite the contrary. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
I swore up and down I was going to steer clear of these kinds of threads because of all the back and bickering.
But by accident I ran across this article.The first sentence and the title of this article made some sense.
Now I'm bowing out of this and going into a much happier thread topic.
The Problem with "the Wrong Hands"
Paul Waldman
January 10, 2013
If we knew whose hands were right and whose were wrong, stopping gun violence would be easy.
The other day, former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly (or as he is for some reason always referred to as, "Astronaut Mark Kelly"; I guess if you're an astronaut you get that) announced that they have started a new initiative, Americans for Responsible Solutions, to push for new laws to limit gun violence. I have great admiration for both of them and I hope they succeed, but there was something I heard Kelly say in an interview that was worthy of note, and a bit unfortunate. He noted that they're not trying to take away anyone's guns, and they're gun owners themselves. They just want to make sure guns stay out of "the wrong hands." The problem with this—and I think it's something well-meaning people probably say a lot without giving it too much thought—is that it assumes that the lines are clear between the right hands and the wrong hands, and if we could just make sure no wrong hands got guns, we'd all be safe.
There are some people who should definitely not have access to guns, like convicted felons, or people with severe mental illness, or teenagers, whose ability to make clear, reasoned judgments is extraordinarily poor. But once you get beyond that, the idea that we can make an a priori distinction between people who should have guns and who shouldn't is a fantasy. There are around 30,000 gun deaths in America every year, and only a tiny percentage of those are from mass shootings committed by people who have gone completely over the edge. Many gun crimes are committed by people who got their guns illegally, and if you did that your hands are wrong by definition. But that inevitably leaves thousands of gun deaths (including suicides; because of the proliferation of guns in America, we have far higher success rates for suicides here than in other similar countries) attributable to people who would have seemed like "the right hands" until they shot somebody.
The fantasy that society is made up of clearly distinguishable "good guys" and "bad guys" is something the NRA and the gun manufacturers fervently want us all to believe. As Rick Perlstein writes, Ronald Reagan was more responsible than anyone for weaving this idea into the fabric of conservatism:
For them, it's almost as if "evildoers" glow red, like ET: everyone just knows who they are. My favorite example from studying Reagan was the time the time news came out that Vice President Spiro Agnew was being investigated for bribery. The Governor of California told David Broder, "I have known Ted Agnew to be an honest and and honorable man. He, like any other citizen of high character, should be considered innocent until proven otherwise." Citizen of high character: I don't remember that line in my Constitution. That same week, he said of an alleged cop killer, not yet tried, that he deserved the electric chair.
As long as we continue to believe that we can easily tell who the bad guys are and that every gun death isn't an argument spun out of control or an abusive husband who killed his wife or an impulsive suicide attempt that might not have ended that way, but instead they were all scenes out of a Schwarzenegger movie, we'll delude ourselves into thinking that some meaningful proportion of those 30,000 deaths can be prevented if we just take their guns—or, as the NRA would have it, make sure there's somebody around to return fire when they come for our children. And then we'll have squandered this opportunity.
But by accident I ran across this article.The first sentence and the title of this article made some sense.
Now I'm bowing out of this and going into a much happier thread topic.
The Problem with "the Wrong Hands"
Paul Waldman
January 10, 2013
If we knew whose hands were right and whose were wrong, stopping gun violence would be easy.
The other day, former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly (or as he is for some reason always referred to as, "Astronaut Mark Kelly"; I guess if you're an astronaut you get that) announced that they have started a new initiative, Americans for Responsible Solutions, to push for new laws to limit gun violence. I have great admiration for both of them and I hope they succeed, but there was something I heard Kelly say in an interview that was worthy of note, and a bit unfortunate. He noted that they're not trying to take away anyone's guns, and they're gun owners themselves. They just want to make sure guns stay out of "the wrong hands." The problem with this—and I think it's something well-meaning people probably say a lot without giving it too much thought—is that it assumes that the lines are clear between the right hands and the wrong hands, and if we could just make sure no wrong hands got guns, we'd all be safe.
There are some people who should definitely not have access to guns, like convicted felons, or people with severe mental illness, or teenagers, whose ability to make clear, reasoned judgments is extraordinarily poor. But once you get beyond that, the idea that we can make an a priori distinction between people who should have guns and who shouldn't is a fantasy. There are around 30,000 gun deaths in America every year, and only a tiny percentage of those are from mass shootings committed by people who have gone completely over the edge. Many gun crimes are committed by people who got their guns illegally, and if you did that your hands are wrong by definition. But that inevitably leaves thousands of gun deaths (including suicides; because of the proliferation of guns in America, we have far higher success rates for suicides here than in other similar countries) attributable to people who would have seemed like "the right hands" until they shot somebody.
The fantasy that society is made up of clearly distinguishable "good guys" and "bad guys" is something the NRA and the gun manufacturers fervently want us all to believe. As Rick Perlstein writes, Ronald Reagan was more responsible than anyone for weaving this idea into the fabric of conservatism:
For them, it's almost as if "evildoers" glow red, like ET: everyone just knows who they are. My favorite example from studying Reagan was the time the time news came out that Vice President Spiro Agnew was being investigated for bribery. The Governor of California told David Broder, "I have known Ted Agnew to be an honest and and honorable man. He, like any other citizen of high character, should be considered innocent until proven otherwise." Citizen of high character: I don't remember that line in my Constitution. That same week, he said of an alleged cop killer, not yet tried, that he deserved the electric chair.
As long as we continue to believe that we can easily tell who the bad guys are and that every gun death isn't an argument spun out of control or an abusive husband who killed his wife or an impulsive suicide attempt that might not have ended that way, but instead they were all scenes out of a Schwarzenegger movie, we'll delude ourselves into thinking that some meaningful proportion of those 30,000 deaths can be prevented if we just take their guns—or, as the NRA would have it, make sure there's somebody around to return fire when they come for our children. And then we'll have squandered this opportunity.
------ This thread is Archived ------
galrads: You choose to doubt, not I.
The second amendment is about protecting citizens against government gone bad. If the government wants to protect children in gun free zones, it needs to focus on the mental health issue and securing schools and other gun free zones.
Once again
The second amendment is about protecting citizens against government gone bad. If the government wants to protect children in gun free zones, it needs to focus on the mental health issue and securing schools and other gun free zones.
Once again
if you feel threatened about reasonable limits than I would question the legitimacy of your purpose. the ammendment provides for the right to arm a militia which we do with our local police and nat'l guard, also with individual arms ownership, but nowhere does it prohibit the government from regulating/overseeing that ownership.
I agree that mental health issues are important but my safety and the safety of my children is an urgency more important than your right to own assault weapons that someone could get hold of when you really do not need them for a legitimate reason (example - you are active military on duty as police officer (or perhaps it's now OK to be a mob thug???). No one is trying to prohibit hunter's from owning legitimate hunting rifles. But nutjobs pull on that unrealistically to try to garner sympathy (for what purpose is still unclear in a sane world), but nowhere has the President said he wants to prohibit gun ownership.
Clearly we have too many examples to show that there are too many individual gun owners who have not been able or willing to keep their weapons out of the wrong hands. It has basically become a homeland security issue and I see it becoming regulated from there as well as the ATF in the future. We urgently need immediate controls now to protect from further public shootings - while at the same time implementing more long term solutions.
I agree that weapons regulations are not the only issue - that is the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is a culture that views weapons as a way to solve problems. I would question the mental health (and therefore right to own) of anyone who cannot rationally understand the need for controls of weapons that can kill. Once again, those who are radical in their opinions do not belong at the decision making table - on either end of the spectrum
------ This thread is Archived ------
felixis99: if you feel threatened about reasonable limits than I would question the legitimacy of your purpose. the ammendment provides for the right to arm a militia which we do with our local police and nat'l guard, also with individual arms ownership, but nowhere does it prohibit the government from regulating/overseeing that ownership.
I agree that mental health issues are important but my safety and the safety of my children is an urgency more important than your right to own assault weapons that someone could get hold of when you really do not need them for a legitimate reason (example - you are active military on duty as police officer (or perhaps it's now OK to be a mob thug???). No one is trying to prohibit hunter's from owning legitimate hunting rifles. But nutjobs pull on that unrealistically to try to garner sympathy (for what purpose is still unclear in a sane world), but nowhere has the President said he wants to prohibit gun ownership.
Clearly we have too many examples to show that there are too many individual gun owners who have not been able or willing to keep their weapons out of the wrong hands. It has basically become a homeland security issue and I see it becoming regulated from there as well as the ATF in the future. We urgently need immediate controls now to protect from further public shootings - while at the same time implementing more long term solutions.
I agree that weapons regulations are not the only issue - that is the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is a culture that views weapons as a way to solve problems. I would question the mental health (and therefore right to own) of anyone who cannot rationally understand the need for controls of weapons that can kill. Once again, those who are radical in their opinions do not belong at the decision making table - on either end of the spectrum
actually the Founding Fathers were very clear about the 2nd Amendment and it's purpose!I agree that mental health issues are important but my safety and the safety of my children is an urgency more important than your right to own assault weapons that someone could get hold of when you really do not need them for a legitimate reason (example - you are active military on duty as police officer (or perhaps it's now OK to be a mob thug???). No one is trying to prohibit hunter's from owning legitimate hunting rifles. But nutjobs pull on that unrealistically to try to garner sympathy (for what purpose is still unclear in a sane world), but nowhere has the President said he wants to prohibit gun ownership.
Clearly we have too many examples to show that there are too many individual gun owners who have not been able or willing to keep their weapons out of the wrong hands. It has basically become a homeland security issue and I see it becoming regulated from there as well as the ATF in the future. We urgently need immediate controls now to protect from further public shootings - while at the same time implementing more long term solutions.
I agree that weapons regulations are not the only issue - that is the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is a culture that views weapons as a way to solve problems. I would question the mental health (and therefore right to own) of anyone who cannot rationally understand the need for controls of weapons that can kill. Once again, those who are radical in their opinions do not belong at the decision making table - on either end of the spectrum
Also told clearly that the People WERE the Militia!
Besides,the National Guard did not come into existence until quite a time after the 2nd was ratified!
To claim that the early American Militias were actually the National Guard is a bit ludicrous,and definitely dis-proven by the writings of the Founders themselves!
But it serves well of course to water down the Second Amendment,by claiming the National Guard is actually the Militia meant by the Founders of the Republic!
A good excuse to disarm the general Public,something never intended by the Founders!
------ This thread is Archived ------
felixis99: if you feel threatened about reasonable limits than I would question the legitimacy of your purpose. the ammendment provides for the right to arm a militia which we do with our local police and nat'l guard, also with individual arms ownership, but nowhere does it prohibit the government from regulating/overseeing that ownership.
I agree that mental health issues are important but my safety and the safety of my children is an urgency more important than your right to own assault weapons that someone could get hold of when you really do not need them for a legitimate reason (example - you are active military on duty as police officer (or perhaps it's now OK to be a mob thug???). No one is trying to prohibit hunter's from owning legitimate hunting rifles. But nutjobs pull on that unrealistically to try to garner sympathy (for what purpose is still unclear in a sane world), but nowhere has the President said he wants to prohibit gun ownership.
Clearly we have too many examples to show that there are too many individual gun owners who have not been able or willing to keep their weapons out of the wrong hands. It has basically become a homeland security issue and I see it becoming regulated from there as well as the ATF in the future. We urgently need immediate controls now to protect from further public shootings - while at the same time implementing more long term solutions.
I agree that weapons regulations are not the only issue - that is the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is a culture that views weapons as a way to solve problems. I would question the mental health (and therefore right to own) of anyone who cannot rationally understand the need for controls of weapons that can kill. Once again, those who are radical in their opinions do not belong at the decision making table - on either end of the spectrum
I agree that mental health issues are important but my safety and the safety of my children is an urgency more important than your right to own assault weapons that someone could get hold of when you really do not need them for a legitimate reason (example - you are active military on duty as police officer (or perhaps it's now OK to be a mob thug???). No one is trying to prohibit hunter's from owning legitimate hunting rifles. But nutjobs pull on that unrealistically to try to garner sympathy (for what purpose is still unclear in a sane world), but nowhere has the President said he wants to prohibit gun ownership.
Clearly we have too many examples to show that there are too many individual gun owners who have not been able or willing to keep their weapons out of the wrong hands. It has basically become a homeland security issue and I see it becoming regulated from there as well as the ATF in the future. We urgently need immediate controls now to protect from further public shootings - while at the same time implementing more long term solutions.
I agree that weapons regulations are not the only issue - that is the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is a culture that views weapons as a way to solve problems. I would question the mental health (and therefore right to own) of anyone who cannot rationally understand the need for controls of weapons that can kill. Once again, those who are radical in their opinions do not belong at the decision making table - on either end of the spectrum
I am truly and sincerely grateful that nothing here represents the future and how it will unfold. Just as you have stated that you feel this way about radicals, I also would not want "fear" to be the motivation for change.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Arm all school bus drivers. In addition to having all school teachers carry a gun in class, every checkout person at the supermarket as well as every priest, gas station attendant, bank teller, hamburger flipper at McDonalds, auto parts counterman, librarian. You just never know when somebody's going to flip out and start shooting and this way good people can shoot back. Hitting innocent bystanders by accident is just the price you have to pay to be safe. Just the cost of doing business so to speak.
BTW the foregoing was sarcasm in case you're like Sheldon and can't recognise it.
Here's some lite reading for you.
I especially like this comment from the above article:
"He is also described as a very paranoid person who goes around his yard at night with a flashlight and a shotgun."
BTW the foregoing was sarcasm in case you're like Sheldon and can't recognise it.
Here's some lite reading for you.
I especially like this comment from the above article:
"He is also described as a very paranoid person who goes around his yard at night with a flashlight and a shotgun."
------ This thread is Archived ------
felixis99: if you feel threatened about reasonable limits than I would question the legitimacy of your purpose. the ammendment provides for the right to arm a militia which we do with our local police and nat'l guard, also with individual arms ownership, but nowhere does it prohibit the government from regulating/overseeing that ownership.
I agree that mental health issues are important but my safety and the safety of my children is an urgency more important than your right to own assault weapons that someone could get hold of when you really do not need them for a legitimate reason (example - you are active military on duty as police officer (or perhaps it's now OK to be a mob thug???). No one is trying to prohibit hunter's from owning legitimate hunting rifles. But nutjobs pull on that unrealistically to try to garner sympathy (for what purpose is still unclear in a sane world), but nowhere has the President said he wants to prohibit gun ownership.
Clearly we have too many examples to show that there are too many individual gun owners who have not been able or willing to keep their weapons out of the wrong hands. It has basically become a homeland security issue and I see it becoming regulated from there as well as the ATF in the future. We urgently need immediate controls now to protect from further public shootings - while at the same time implementing more long term solutions.
I agree that weapons regulations are not the only issue - that is the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is a culture that views weapons as a way to solve problems. I would question the mental health (and therefore right to own) of anyone who cannot rationally understand the need for controls of weapons that can kill. Once again, those who are radical in their opinions do not belong at the decision making table - on either end of the spectrum
I agree that mental health issues are important but my safety and the safety of my children is an urgency more important than your right to own assault weapons that someone could get hold of when you really do not need them for a legitimate reason (example - you are active military on duty as police officer (or perhaps it's now OK to be a mob thug???). No one is trying to prohibit hunter's from owning legitimate hunting rifles. But nutjobs pull on that unrealistically to try to garner sympathy (for what purpose is still unclear in a sane world), but nowhere has the President said he wants to prohibit gun ownership.
Clearly we have too many examples to show that there are too many individual gun owners who have not been able or willing to keep their weapons out of the wrong hands. It has basically become a homeland security issue and I see it becoming regulated from there as well as the ATF in the future. We urgently need immediate controls now to protect from further public shootings - while at the same time implementing more long term solutions.
I agree that weapons regulations are not the only issue - that is the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is a culture that views weapons as a way to solve problems. I would question the mental health (and therefore right to own) of anyone who cannot rationally understand the need for controls of weapons that can kill. Once again, those who are radical in their opinions do not belong at the decision making table - on either end of the spectrum
Felix. No doubt your motives for expressing your opinion here is well intended. However, many books, even articles available on the Internet, elucidate on reasons the founding folks included a 2nd amendment in our constitution. Check them out and you might be able to appreciate why others appreciate the 2nd amendment. Oh, as others here in this thread have mentioned, the militia is the people.
------ This thread is Archived ------
galrads: Felix. No doubt your motives for expressing your opinion here is well intended. However, many books, even articles available on the Internet, elucidate on reasons the founding folks included a 2nd amendment in our constitution. Check them out and you might be able to appreciate why others appreciate the 2nd amendment. Oh, as others here in this thread have mentioned, the militia is the people.
------ This thread is Archived ------
GUZMAN1: http://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=militia&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMilitia&ei=3IcKUfqjCcXP0QWmx4HYCw&usg=AFQjCNGphY8rhGLdkuvjBY4g--rGLtS6OQ
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
------ This thread is Archived ------
galrads: A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
Yes, armed citizens, I think it's the right sense of the word "militia". But the link I posted includes another "extensive meanings" like government defence groups, in many countries.
------ This thread is Archived ------
GUZMAN1: Yes, armed citizens, I think it's the right sense of the word "militia". But the link I posted includes another "extensive meanings" like government defence groups, in many countries.
Yes, I agree. But I'm not a Wikipedia fan because of the edit function it provides.
The link below includes a more lucid description on militia. It includes reference to what exist in Switzerland.
Of particular noteworthy in it is "Subjects for action"
One of the most important subjects for action by local militia units is investigation of election fraud and other kinds of official corruption. It will do little good to try to elect better officials if elections are rigged, and if they are, the militia may become the only way for citizens to secure their rights. If such fraud is found, it will also help to build public support for further militia action and for greater participation.
Another key subject is to inform citizens of their right and duty, when serving as jurors in cases in which the government is a party, to judge the law and not just the facts in the case. No matter how despicable the defendant in a criminal case or how heinous the offense, the jury must find the defendant not guilty if the law under which he is charged is unconstitutional or misapplied. It is unconstitutional if it violates a constitutional right, is not based on a power delegated to government, or is so vague that honest people may disagree on how to obey or enforce it. It is misapplied if it is applied to acts outside its proper jurisdiction, such as a federal criminal law applied to acts committed on state territory, or to acts not intended to be included by the lawmakers.
One of the most important subjects for action will be to establish an alert system for warning of abuses of citizens by organs of the government, and mobilizing to defend them. It must be emphasized that it is not enough for citizens to defend their rights in isolation. Only if they band together can their rights be protected.
Education in constitutional law must also be a priority. Every citizen must be trained to interpret the constitutionality of laws and official acts, and taught that doing so is the responsibility of each individual, that it cannot be delegated to others, such as judges or superiors. That is the Lesson of Nuremberg. Special attention needs to be given to educating lawyers, judges, officials, and college and high school students. Militia members need to make sure that every public library contains suitable books and magazines that provide education on these subjects.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ooby_dooby: Because it illustrates the heart of the problem. If you can't understand that then maybe you're not qualified to speak on the subject of widespread gun ownership.
I wonder how you would feel if this armed, paranoid, basket case with PTSD, who beat a dog to death with a pipe lived next door to you and your family? Would you defend his 2nd amendment right to bear arms?
I wonder how you would feel if this armed, paranoid, basket case with PTSD, who beat a dog to death with a pipe lived next door to you and your family? Would you defend his 2nd amendment right to bear arms?
They'd lost all their rights to have a gun.If I caught one of my neighbors beating on a dog or human I'd beat them to death with it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ooby_dooby: Because it illustrates the heart of the problem. If you can't understand that then maybe you're not qualified to speak on the subject of widespread gun ownership.
I wonder how you would feel if this armed, paranoid, basket case with PTSD, who beat a dog to death with a pipe lived next door to you and your family? Would you defend his 2nd amendment right to bear arms?
I wonder how you would feel if this armed, paranoid, basket case with PTSD, who beat a dog to death with a pipe lived next door to you and your family? Would you defend his 2nd amendment right to bear arms?
Maybe you could have included your explanation in your original post. Some of us don't like to take much for granted. Your comment w/o explanation made it appear to me that you like his kind of untreated mentally ill activities. IMO
------ This thread is Archived ------
NCSL info
Possession of a firearm by Mentally Ill State by State.Jan 2013
Possession of a firearm by Mentally Ill State by State.Jan 2013
------ 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
The Best of the GOP
Feel Good Music
other can see but not you
Common Issues with the BMW X1
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Sleepy Don!
the way you look
wanting beyond need
Unions support Democrats!
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).
I agree