Predict how long before????

[Cowman]

.

Is it just me or am I the only one who wants to bang Hilary Swank?

.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDAlN4H5E]Kevin's wonderful illustration of the difference between hot and beautiful. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[tjvh]

How long before the Tragedy of the Batman Movie shooting will be twisted Politically into another Anti gun Campaign by the Democrats? I'm thinking Monday Morning the pro gun ban people will be in high gear. I think that they will use the weekend to plan their strike which will commence at 9AM Monday morning on all of those usual suspect shows. They will wait until the majority of people who aren't Democrats do what they do best... Go to WORK.

FACT: The VERY first time I heard about this gun control shit is after i logged onto USMB. I've been watching CNN all morning, and yet haven't heard anything about restrciting gun rights.

MY GOD, the paranoia in here...

Paranoia in conjunction with partisan desperation.

Desperate because we prefer people keep their twisted ideologies from influencing our Constitutional Rights.

 

[occupied]

In many ways it shared a lot of similarities, Many of our Revolutionary leaders including our first President were Military men. The entire argument is that many disagree the purpose of the second amendment, and that comes from interpreting the Constitution with an ideological slant, instead of interpreting exactly what was written. I really don't think the framers had home defense as their primary reasoning behind the 2A in 1776. It was written so that no Politician could ever get so powerful that they could circumvent our Constitutional Laws, and turn America into something akin to a dictatorship, or monarchy (which is what we were fleeing).

I didn't think I would have to define a military coup for you but damned if you do not know what one looks like in the 20th - 21st century and the aftermath of such a horrible occurrence. Don't look to our revolution for an example, there is a host of past Asian, African and South American examples that show clearly that the military has no business deciding who leads a country because they always choose incredibly poorly.

And you believe our Military isn't slightly more educated than ALL those examples you have given, and far more capable of making intelligent decisions based upon their own moral judgement? Do you honestly believe they would follow a lunatic off a cliff (as in a coup)? That speaks volumes about your faith in America's Military men, and women when you compare them to uneducated third world Nationals.

All military leaders are the same, it's the very good reason we do not allow the military individually or as a group to participate directly in politics. This is getting increasingly off topic so to bring it back I will pose this question: What is the attitude taken towards guns in private hands during the implementation of martial law?

 

[rightwinger]

That isnt true, the left shouting down anyone in disagreement proves you fuil of shit once again.

If all you have is what ifs. Go away, you just are not that smart.......

The first amendment has kept us safe from the abuses of government for 235 years. Guns in the hands of private citizens have yet to protect us

That right doesnt stand alone. So you can not in any honesty give it exclusive credit.

But you are trying. Which makes discussions with you as pointless as being polite to the left.

The right of a private citizen to challenge his government through speech and the press as well as vote out those who are not satisfactory has kept government in check for 235 years

Guns in the hands of private citizens have not

 

[rightwinger]

That's only because they did the job right 236 years ago.

Yes they did. They put in a form of government that didn't need to try to keep it's citizens in check through military force. They allowed the citizens a right to vote and select those that best represent the needs of the country

It has worked for 235 years without citizens having to take up arms against their country

'Gun nuts', as you call them, have no desire to attack the government. Our only desire is that the government doesn't attack us.

Sending LEO or NG forces into the streets to round up all our newly outlawed weapons would CERTAINLY qualify as an attack.

Still fantasizing about the evil government

 

[Cowman]

That's only because they did the job right 236 years ago.

Yes they did. They put in a form of government that didn't need to try to keep it's citizens in check through military force. They allowed the citizens a right to vote and select those that best represent the needs of the country

It has worked for 235 years without citizens having to take up arms against their country

'Gun nuts', as you call them, have no desire to attack the government. Our only desire is that the government doesn't attack us.

Sending LEO or NG forces into the streets to round up all our newly outlawed weapons would CERTAINLY qualify as an attack.

You need to find some better desires.

 

[Full-Auto]

The first amendment has kept us safe from the abuses of government for 235 years. Guns in the hands of private citizens have yet to protect us

That right doesnt stand alone. So you can not in any honesty give it exclusive credit.

But you are trying. Which makes discussions with you as pointless as being polite to the left.

The right of a private citizen to challenge his government through speech and the press as well as vote out those who are not satisfactory has kept government in check for 235 years

Guns in the hands of private citizens have not

It certainly can be credited , but not in its entirety. Then we have that nasty war about 150 years ago or so.

WHICH TAKES AWAY FROM SAID CREDIT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right gun nuts are the blow hards, because there is no contention to disprove.

The nuts have made no points.

No, "gun nuts" are extremists far to the political right; they are not mainstream right wingers.

That lie of yours ends right here.

That is why you fail, you believe in your mind that Democrats do not own guns, or respect the ideas behind the second amendment. Having lived in Wisconsin, I assure you I met some people I'd nearly be willing to label as "gun nuts" if I used such a term, and you'd be surprised to know that they were Registered Democrats. It is facts like these that make it easy to understand the reasons for the Democratic Party becoming unhinged, and its pattern of defeat since 2010. Democrats do not understand fellow Democrats outside of their own immediate circles. Speaking of Wisconsin... How did that Walker thing work out again?

Jake is a blowhard. If you ask him to prove his contention he withers away.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, it takes away from full-auto's credit. The civic virtue of We the People put down the crazees in the south who thought they could mess with the gubmint,

That right doesnt stand alone. So you can not in any honesty give it exclusive credit.

But you are trying. Which makes discussions with you as pointless as being polite to the left.

The right of a private citizen to challenge his government through speech and the press as well as vote out those who are not satisfactory has kept government in check for 235 years

Guns in the hands of private citizens have not

It certainly can be credited , but not in its entirety. Then we have that nasty war about 150 years ago or so.

WHICH TAKES AWAY FROM SAID CREDIT.

 

[tjvh]

I didn't think I would have to define a military coup for you but damned if you do not know what one looks like in the 20th - 21st century and the aftermath of such a horrible occurrence. Don't look to our revolution for an example, there is a host of past Asian, African and South American examples that show clearly that the military has no business deciding who leads a country because they always choose incredibly poorly.

And you believe our Military isn't slightly more educated than ALL those examples you have given, and far more capable of making intelligent decisions based upon their own moral judgement? Do you honestly believe they would follow a lunatic off a cliff (as in a coup)? That speaks volumes about your faith in America's Military men, and women when you compare them to uneducated third world Nationals.

All military leaders are the same, it's the very good reason we do not allow the military individually or as a group to participate directly in politics. This is getting increasingly off topic so to bring it back I will pose this question: What is the attitude taken towards guns in private hands during the implementation of martial law?

My attitude is that were Martial Law to be implemented, there would be plenty more to worry about than whether someone has a gun, and whether they should be allowed to keep it. The Constitutionality of said Martial Law would determine whether or not sane people go along with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can't argue with that. That is why the neo-cons knew better than to issue martial law.

And you believe our Military isn't slightly more educated than ALL those examples you have given, and far more capable of making intelligent decisions based upon their own moral judgement? Do you honestly believe they would follow a lunatic off a cliff (as in a coup)? That speaks volumes about your faith in America's Military men, and women when you compare them to uneducated third world Nationals.

All military leaders are the same, it's the very good reason we do not allow the military individually or as a group to participate directly in politics. This is getting increasingly off topic so to bring it back I will pose this question: What is the attitude taken towards guns in private hands during the implementation of martial law?

My attitude is that were Martial Law to be implemented, there would be plenty more to worry about than whether someone has a gun, and whether they should be allowed to keep it. The Constitutionality of said Martial Law would determine whether or not sane people go along with it.

 

[rightwinger]

That right doesnt stand alone. So you can not in any honesty give it exclusive credit.

But you are trying. Which makes discussions with you as pointless as being polite to the left.

The right of a private citizen to challenge his government through speech and the press as well as vote out those who are not satisfactory has kept government in check for 235 years

Guns in the hands of private citizens have not

It certainly can be credited , but not in its entirety. Then we have that nasty war about 150 years ago or so.

WHICH TAKES AWAY FROM SAID CREDIT.

That nasty war 150 years ago was states fighting for their rights to own other people......not citizens taking up arms against their country

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We might not, but there's an old saying...

"I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

The funniest thing about the "guns keep us free" crowd is that in their mind they feel they could hold off the feds with their little stash of guns in their three bedroom suburban fortress.

You really are delusional, man. If you actually read the words instead of spouting talking points you'd see those first 3 words. Most importantly the 3rd one. Just because you don't have the backbone to die for the greater good doesn't mean the rest of us should follow your sheepish example. In other words, I have NO expectation of holding off the brownshirts indefinitely, but I do expect they'd pay a price for their temerity.

If our Founders felt like you do we'd still be a province of England.

The Second Amendment pertains to the right of self-defense and the individual right to own a handgun pursuant to that defense. The Amendment enjoins jurisdictions from prohibiting ownership of firearms.

The Heller Court noted that the right was unrelated to ‘militia service’:

This comparison to the Declaration of Right would not make sense if the Second Amendment right was the right to use a gun in a militia, which was plainly not what the English right protected. As the Tennessee Supreme Court recognized 38 years after Story wrote his Commentaries, “[t]he passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended … and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.” Andrews v. State, 50Tenn. 165, 183 (1871). Story’s Commentaries also cite as support Tucker and Rawle, both of whom clearly viewed the right as unconnected to militia service. See 3 Story §1890, n. 2; §1891, n. 3. In addition, in a shorter 1840 work Story wrote: “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.” A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States §450 (reprinted in 1986).

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Amendment, therefore, was intended to protect an individual right and prohibit the disarming of citizens by the state; the notion of the Amendment authorizing an armed population to be always at the ready to rise up against a government perceived as ‘tyrannical’ is problematic at best, and does not comport with the current understanding of the Amendment.

Indeed, the idea of the government ‘fearful’ of an armed population and as some sort of ‘deterrent’ to government takings of property or persons is naïve and foolish.

 

[tjvh]

Can't argue with that. That is why the neo-cons knew better than to issue martial law.

All military leaders are the same, it's the very good reason we do not allow the military individually or as a group to participate directly in politics. This is getting increasingly off topic so to bring it back I will pose this question: What is the attitude taken towards guns in private hands during the implementation of martial law?

My attitude is that were Martial Law to be implemented, there would be plenty more to worry about than whether someone has a gun, and whether they should be allowed to keep it. The Constitutionality of said Martial Law would determine whether or not sane people go along with it.

And Liberals don't know better?

 

[signelect]

I believe it has started already...

Piers Morgan

✔

@piersmorgan

Horrendous details from this Colorado cinema shooting. America has got to do something about its gun laws. Now is the time.
LINK

They guy comes over from England and now is telling us what we need to do. You know it is going to happen but more laws will not stop a lunatic from doing what he did. It could have just as well be a bomb or acid. Make it really HARD on people who break the law with a gun.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sure they do, and I am sure that we are not going to have to worry about that.

The extreme right is far more dangerous to our freedoms than anyone else in American society.

Can't argue with that. That is why the neo-cons knew better than to issue martial law.

My attitude is that were Martial Law to be implemented, there would be plenty more to worry about than whether someone has a gun, and whether they should be allowed to keep it. The Constitutionality of said Martial Law would determine whether or not sane people go along with it.

And Liberals don't know better?

 

[occupied]

And you believe our Military isn't slightly more educated than ALL those examples you have given, and far more capable of making intelligent decisions based upon their own moral judgement? Do you honestly believe they would follow a lunatic off a cliff (as in a coup)? That speaks volumes about your faith in America's Military men, and women when you compare them to uneducated third world Nationals.

All military leaders are the same, it's the very good reason we do not allow the military individually or as a group to participate directly in politics. This is getting increasingly off topic so to bring it back I will pose this question: What is the attitude taken towards guns in private hands during the implementation of martial law?

My attitude is that were Martial Law to be implemented, there would be plenty more to worry about than whether someone has a gun, and whether they should be allowed to keep it. The Constitutionality of said Martial Law would determine whether or not sane people go along with it.

This whole thing started out with the premise that the military would step in and seize control of a duly elected civilian government for some greater patriotic good and you talk of constitutionality? Are you stoned or something? The military is barred from holding any kind of political power in this country and must, under the constitution be led by an elected civilian government, no exceptions. You cannot have a military government and the present constitution at the same time, make up your mind.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yes they did. They put in a form of government that didn't need to try to keep it's citizens in check through military force. They allowed the citizens a right to vote and select those that best represent the needs of the country

It has worked for 235 years without citizens having to take up arms against their country

'Gun nuts', as you call them, have no desire to attack the government. Our only desire is that the government doesn't attack us.

Sending LEO or NG forces into the streets to round up all our newly outlawed weapons would CERTAINLY qualify as an attack.

Still fantasizing about the evil government

Let me ask this...

If you people who want to further restrict the 2nd Amendment get your way, and all semi-automatic rifles and handguns are outlawed, how are you proposing the get them?

 

[occupied]

'Gun nuts', as you call them, have no desire to attack the government. Our only desire is that the government doesn't attack us.

Sending LEO or NG forces into the streets to round up all our newly outlawed weapons would CERTAINLY qualify as an attack.

Still fantasizing about the evil government

Let me ask this...

If you people who want to further restrict the 2nd Amendment get your way, and all semi-automatic rifles and handguns are outlawed, how are you proposing the get them?

Quit posing your paranoid fantasies as reasonable questions.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Still fantasizing about the evil government

Let me ask this...

If you people who want to further restrict the 2nd Amendment get your way, and all semi-automatic rifles and handguns are outlawed, how are you proposing the get them?

Quit posing your paranoid fantasies as reasonable questions.

So you got nothin', huh?