GUNS must GO

[Cecilie1200]

"...Germany was a Democracy when Hitler took power..."

The USA was a democracy when Bush Junior took over, and he did illegally take over. Bush Junior lied his way into a war that has killed thousnads of American boys and you people just bent over and took it straight up the rectum.

Rectum?? lol. Be a man and say ASS.

::glances down at her rather impressive cleavage:: And I want to be a man because why?

As far as Bush getting into office, you're right, he did receive less votes, however, illegality had nothing to do with it. It was a USSC decision that put him into office. I don't particularly agree with it any more than I agree with other retarded USSC decisions, but hindsight is 20-20, especially when your making "rectum" references.

BEEEEEP!! First of all, he ALLEGEDLY received fewer votes overall, but only a fool trusts the totals explicitly, given the rampant election fraud so common these days. And anyway, we don't elect our Presidents by overall national total, so prattling about some apocryphal "popular vote" is meaningless. Second, the USSC decision didn't put anyone in office. The Electoral College vote did. The USSC just put an end to Gore's attempt to steal the election.

If you must talk about it, at least do so with facts.

You have nowhere to go on the gun issue. Which has been why you haven't posted a damn thing about guns in the last several posts.

Actually, I haven't posted much about guns per se because you're right: there's nowhere else to go on guns. They're Constitutionally legal, and there's no way in Hell anyone's going to muster enough support for an Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. Therefore, this is all just a pointless meander through the fevered wet dreams spawned by Yukon's diseased mind.

But hey, if you don't like guns, feel free to disarm yourself. Just make sure you post a sign in your yard to that effect, so that your antifirearm purity isn't tainted by the shadow of MY gun ownership.

 

[BrianH]

The USA was a democracy when Bush Junior took over, and he did illegally take over. Bush Junior lied his way into a war that has killed thousnads of American boys and you people just bent over and took it straight up the rectum.

Rectum?? lol. Be a man and say ASS.

::glances down at her rather impressive cleavage:: And I want to be a man because why?

As far as Bush getting into office, you're right, he did receive less votes, however, illegality had nothing to do with it. It was a USSC decision that put him into office. I don't particularly agree with it any more than I agree with other retarded USSC decisions, but hindsight is 20-20, especially when your making "rectum" references.

BEEEEEP!! First of all, he ALLEGEDLY received fewer votes overall, but only a fool trusts the totals explicitly, given the rampant election fraud so common these days. And anyway, we don't elect our Presidents by overall national total, so prattling about some apocryphal "popular vote" is meaningless. Second, the USSC decision didn't put anyone in office. The Electoral College vote did. The USSC just put an end to Gore's attempt to steal the election.

If you must talk about it, at least do so with facts.

You have nowhere to go on the gun issue. Which has been why you haven't posted a damn thing about guns in the last several posts.

Actually, I haven't posted much about guns per se because you're right: there's nowhere else to go on guns. They're Constitutionally legal, and there's no way in Hell anyone's going to muster enough support for an Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. Therefore, this is all just a pointless meander through the fevered wet dreams spawned by Yukon's diseased mind.

But hey, if you don't like guns, feel free to disarm yourself. Just make sure you post a sign in your yard to that effect, so that your antifirearm purity isn't tainted by the shadow of MY gun ownership.

Is all of this aggression aimed toward me?? If so, you need to go back and re-read the thread, because I've been arguing the same thing that you're saying.

Second of all, I said the same thing you did about Bush's election...you just chose different words and put different spin on it. The USSC could have sided with Gores attempt and then it would have been a different story. I am also aware that our system is based on electoral votes, however, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[necritan]

Rectum?? lol. Be a man and say ASS.

::glances down at her rather impressive cleavage:: And I want to be a man because why?



BEEEEEP!! First of all, he ALLEGEDLY received fewer votes overall, but only a fool trusts the totals explicitly, given the rampant election fraud so common these days. And anyway, we don't elect our Presidents by overall national total, so prattling about some apocryphal "popular vote" is meaningless. Second, the USSC decision didn't put anyone in office. The Electoral College vote did. The USSC just put an end to Gore's attempt to steal the election.

If you must talk about it, at least do so with facts.

You have nowhere to go on the gun issue. Which has been why you haven't posted a damn thing about guns in the last several posts.

Actually, I haven't posted much about guns per se because you're right: there's nowhere else to go on guns. They're Constitutionally legal, and there's no way in Hell anyone's going to muster enough support for an Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. Therefore, this is all just a pointless meander through the fevered wet dreams spawned by Yukon's diseased mind.

But hey, if you don't like guns, feel free to disarm yourself. Just make sure you post a sign in your yard to that effect, so that your antifirearm purity isn't tainted by the shadow of MY gun ownership.

Is all of this aggression aimed toward me?? If so, you need to go back and re-read the thread, because I've been arguing the same thing that you're saying.

Second of all, I said the same thing you did about Bush's election...you just chose different words and put different spin on it. The USSC could have sided with Gores attempt and then it would have been a different story. I am also aware that our system is based on electoral votes, however, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Mis-directed hostility to be sure.

(Pointing to Cecilie's post).... I dont think there will be an Amendment to repeal the 2nd either....(hopefully)....but the Anti's are relentless in their attempts to nueter the 2nd into an oblivion. And unless gun owners want to shoot $1000 micro-stamped ammunition out of their registered (smart gun) muzzle loaders ....they may want to wake up and start defending this extremely important "Right" that is so often taken for granted.

 

[frazzledgear]

About that constitution thing that justified civilian gun control: wasn't that something that was more about militia people? Just curious

There is nothing in the US Constitution which justifies civilian gun control... the US Constitution speaks only once to Civilian ownership of guns and in that instance, it states unambiguously that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It states as it's basis, that the sum of armed, able bodied citizens, of which the civilian militia is comprised, is necessary to a free state.

If there is another reference, I'd love to hear more about it.

You are right. I guess they stopped teaching this in public schools because some people here seem not to know this - but the Bill of Rights is the list of rights all citizens have. The silly claim that although the 1st Amendment applies to all citizens, the founders then threw in the 2nd Amendment which somehow only applied to some vague, ill-defined "special" group and NOT all citizens -and then went back to laying out the rights of all citizens in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc. Amendments -is one of the hokiest arguments around. And wrong. Which is why the Supreme Court struck down the gun ban in Washington, DC.

The Bill of Rights lays out the rights of ALL citizens -not any rights for government, any government-run organization, military or any "special" group. It places no restrictions on citizens with regard to these rights. The only restrictions are placed on government to not interfere with these rights. There is no such thing as a "group right" that is denied to all other citizens.

In addition, the founders wrote the Federalist Papers and many wrote additional papers in order to further define, explain and lay out the reasoning behind the different sections of the Constitution for all future generations. They fully intended the right to own guns to be for all citizens -without a doubt. The founders explain their great fear they were creating a government that might someday turn on its own citizens -and knew the best way of making it more difficult for government to do so was by making sure citizens had the means to defend themselves from such a government. Our founders firmly believed that government is always to be the servant of the people -and not their master. Ever look up the definition of "militia"? It means "citizen soldiers" as opposed to professional soldiers -and those citizen soldiers may be fighting either in defense of existing government or against it. When a militia is called up, citizen soldiers are expected to bring their OWN gun. The founders deliberately did NOT refer to "state regulated" militias -but only to "well regulated" ones. The founders deliberately did NOT refer to militias fighting ONLY in defense of existing government because they knew there may be a time when a "free state" and "existing government" were not one and the same thing. Just as happened just a few years earlier before the Revolutionary War. These were not hastily chosen words, but ones that took YEARS to decide upon trying to insure no loophole that might allow government to strip citizens of this right.

ALL governments carry the potential to turn on its own citizens because government is run by people -who are never saints. Our own government has turned on or abused entire groups of Americans in the past. But the governments most lethal to its own citizens are the ones that first stripped their own citizens of the means to defend themselves. I would never vote in favor of forfeiting this right for all future generations. I don't have the RIGHT to forfeit this right for all future generations. And past generations did not forfeit that right for me.

I hear people say, oh our government could never turn on Americans, not in THIS country. Says who? Think the founders would recognize the government we have today? It is much larger, far more powerful and far more instrusive into both state authority and the lives of individuals than they ever envisioned. Who knows what it will look like in another 200 years. No government has ever lasted forever and a good government today is no guarantee that government will remain so for all future generations as well. No government turns on its own citizens -until it does.

 

[Father Time]

It would seem odd to me that founders would lay out an amendment granting soldiers (and only soldiers) the right to keep and bear arms. Did they honestly believe that would ever become an issue? Oh well if they ever want to tell me that the founders never intended it, I have a great Jefferson quote to counter it which I'm sure you guys are familiar with.

 

[necritan]

It would seem odd to me that founders would lay out an amendment granting soldiers (and only soldiers) the right to keep and bear arms. Did they honestly believe that would ever become an issue? Oh well if they ever want to tell me that the founders never intended it, I have a great Jefferson quote to counter it which I'm sure you guys are familiar with.

Yup...its a pretty pathetic arguement huh?

Good ole' Thomas has lots of good stuff to say....

Lets hear it.

 

[frazzledgear]

Second of all, I said the same thing you did about Bush's election...you just chose different words and put different spin on it. The USSC could have sided with Gores attempt and then it would have been a different story. I am also aware that our system is based on electoral votes, however, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

The Supreme Court couldn't have agreed with Gore's attempt to steal that election and pretend to have any Constitutional authority after that. Which is why it didn't even come close to agreeing with Gore. Insisting that democracy at work is trolling among spoiled ballots in heavily Democrat counties where any mistakenly rejected ballot was most likely going to be a Gore vote -while ignoring the spoiled ballots that were cast by the very same method in heavily Republican counties where any mistakenly rejected ballot was most likely going to be against the Democrat -is a joke.

That was a stunt worthy only of a third world banana republic -but NOT how a democratic, free and fair election actually works. My state election laws do not allow for selective recounts or selective handcounts. Florida THOUGHT it had such laws too but Gore found a loophole. A loophole Florida immediately closed in order to avoid another candidate pulling a Gore on them.

Gore did not win in Florida, not by any count, re-count or re-re-count. Not even by very partisan Democrat groups who went in afterwards and did their own counting, hoping to prove that somehow Gore really won in Florida. Gore didn't win in Florida and at no point was he even ahead in any count. He lost -but he tried his best to steal it. Someone can only try to steal what isn't theirs to begin with. And since Bush won every count and re-count -that means it was Gore who tried to steal that election. The Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling said what Gore was trying to do was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Presidents are not elected by popular vote. All Presidential candidates not only are WELL aware of this fact -they specifically tailor their campaigns to try and come up with the right combination of electoral votes. They couldn't care less about the general popular vote -because winning that without the electoral votes -won't get them a cup of coffee. Bush did it right. Gore didn't. But Gore thought HE would be the one to lose the general popular vote while winning the electoral vote. He had a speech all written up explaining why the popular vote was meaningless and why HE was the rightful President. Which he would have been had it worked out that way -but it didn't.

Gee, he sure started whining like a little girl when it turned out he got that wrong, huh? THEN it was all about why whoever won the general popular vote should really be President. LOL As for going to court -try to remember it was GORE who first went to court. Over and over again in fact. Bush finally had to go the Supreme Court to put a stop to the unconstitutional banana republic bullshit Gore was engaged in with the support of the blatantly Democrat partisan state supreme court. And the Supreme Court agreed that what was going on was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure you Democrats would miraculously be able to comprehend this one if it had been the reverse situation.

Time for you whackos to get over that one. And maybe the rest of us can try to get over the totally classless act Gore pulled trying to steal an election he couldn't legitimately win.

 

[necritan]

For the record......I really dont think Brian is much of a Gore supporter.

 

[Father Time]

It would seem odd to me that founders would lay out an amendment granting soldiers (and only soldiers) the right to keep and bear arms. Did they honestly believe that would ever become an issue? Oh well if they ever want to tell me that the founders never intended it, I have a great Jefferson quote to counter it which I'm sure you guys are familiar with.

Yup...its a pretty pathetic arguement huh?

Good ole' Thomas has lots of good stuff to say....

Lets hear it.

"What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Letters: THE NEW CONSTITUTION

 

[necritan]

It would seem odd to me that founders would lay out an amendment granting soldiers (and only soldiers) the right to keep and bear arms. Did they honestly believe that would ever become an issue? Oh well if they ever want to tell me that the founders never intended it, I have a great Jefferson quote to counter it which I'm sure you guys are familiar with.

Yup...its a pretty pathetic arguement huh?

Good ole' Thomas has lots of good stuff to say....

Lets hear it.

"What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Letters: THE NEW CONSTITUTION

Wow.....its cool everytime I read it....thankyou for posting that.

Can you imagine if we had a leader now....who spoke with such words....with such passion for freedom and liberty???

Wow.

 

[sparky]

i own an arsenal of guns......anyone care to comment on how they make me free....?

 

[frazzledgear]

Yup...its a pretty pathetic arguement huh?

Good ole' Thomas has lots of good stuff to say....

Lets hear it.

"What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Letters: THE NEW CONSTITUTION

Wow.....its cool everytime I read it....thankyou for posting that.

Can you imagine if we had a leader now....who spoke with such words....with such passion for freedom and liberty???

Wow.

I'm pretty sure liberals would be insisting such a person should be locked up for the "safety" of us all.

It seems there must be a "critical mass" point before people understand what it meant by such language. We aren't there at this time and therefore such language only scares people who refuse to take the time to contemplate what is meant by these words. But after hearing so many people say that Obama is making sure this country will never be what it was and the never ending spending spree to insure many generations to come are also all bankrupt as well -I think we are getting much, much closer to understanding it. Let's get real here. This country is not only spending money that hasn't even been earned. Its spending money that people who will earn it haven't even been born yet. And your kids will not be the great-grandparents of those who are expected to earn it either.

Maybe next time people will realize that change for change's sake -is a really stupid reason to vote for anyone. But then -this is my third go around with a generation that fell in love with a "hopey-changey" message without once questioning what changes those might be. Its not an American thing. I think its a dumbass human thing.

 

[BrianH]

For the record......I really dont think Brian is much of a Gore supporter.

Thanks necritan...you're correct. I voted for Bush, but simply mentioned the "process" in which I didn't agree with.

 

[BrianH]

i own an arsenal of guns......anyone care to comment on how they make me free....?

Well, you have the FREEDOM to purchase and possess your arsenal. That in itself makes you free.

And, in the event that your freedom is jeapordized, you have the ability to fight for your freedoms.

 

[KittenKoder]

Anyone who is against gun ownership I double dare you to walk into the worst possible neighborhood in your area and insult as many people as possible ... trust me, you won't be shot by a legal gun owner.

 

[Yukon]

Anyone who is against gun ownership I double dare you to walk into the worst possible neighborhood in your area and insult as many people as possible ... trust me, you won't be shot by a legal gun owner.

If you enter that neighbourhood at night look for teeth shining in the dark.

 

[necritan]

i own an arsenal of guns......anyone care to comment on how they make me free....?

Who say's they make you free??? They are "a" freedom....."a" right.

YOU make you free....period.

Care to tell us why you are always cranky???

Care to tell me how a people would demand their freedom from an oppressive government WITHOUT GUNS????

 

[necritan]

Anyone who is against gun ownership I double dare you to walk into the worst possible neighborhood in your area and insult as many people as possible ... trust me, you won't be shot by a legal gun owner.

If you enter that neighbourhood at night look for teeth shining in the dark.

Are you on drugs???

Seriously....do you use heavy drugs??

 

[HideTheRum]

Anyone who is against gun ownership I double dare you to walk into the worst possible neighborhood in your area and insult as many people as possible ... trust me, you won't be shot by a legal gun owner.

If you enter that neighbourhood at night look for teeth shining in the dark.

Are you on drugs???

Seriously....do you use heavy drugs??

Hmmmm, maybe socialized medicine does have some benefits!

 

[Burp]

Brain,

Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............

Guess you'll be telling us the Bible is obsolete?