Absolutely Palinesque, with a twist of Michelle Bachman loony. Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Printable View
Absolutely Palinesque, with a twist of Michelle Bachman loony. Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
It seems the founders meant the part about a "well regulated militia". They even started one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Pre-Constitution_backgroundQuote:
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[108]
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.
On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[110]The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers "that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."
Cut through the lies and propaganda and it's really quite clear what they meant about gun rights and responsibility.
Here's a snippet from The Australian newspaper yesterday :
The US President could not believe it, earlier this week, when cowardly and self-interested senators from his own side of politics blocked a bill to expand background checks for American gun buyers, to limit access to criminals and the mentally ill.
Obama said it was a "shameful" day for Washington, a refusal to honour Sandy Hook's 20 dead children and their teachers with a minor legal amendment.
Sharing Obama's disbelief was Gabby Giffords, the Democrat Congresswoman who survived a massacre after she was shot in the head in Tucson, in 2011, by a mentally disturbed gun buyer.
"The fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn't want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun", Obama said.
"There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics : the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections".
The money probably helped:Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash
Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists
Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash | World news | The Guardian
Drive them out of politics, Democrats. There is no way the GOP will win a majority at the mid-terms. Even if it means losing a seat or two to the republicans, make them traitorous wankers pay with their political career. The whole party organisation from the grass roots up should get behind this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
If you don't, you deserve to live in a tyranny, not a democracy.
I kinda figured it'd be the cash. Disgusting.
Disgusting but a reality. Financial support to those running against Senators who voted agaist the bill is growing. The NRA lobby has some competition now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Will be a clash of big money and mobilization of grass roots organizations determining who gets elected. We all know the name of the current champ in doing so. I predict those on Obama's shameful list made a very poor political risk assessment when they chose to ignore overwhelming public opinion.
42 out of 45 of them can at least console themselves in the knowledge that they got a campaign donation out of it. The three chumps who did it for free got nothing except a potential political albatross around their necks come primary season!Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
Try: representing their Constituents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
4 Dems voted "no." (4 Repubs voted "yes")
There is an election cycle coming up.
I do not think owning a gun reflects opinion on mental health background checks and other checks. (Haven't seen the data, but have read several articles). I think most favor such check.Quote:
to politics : the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections".
The entire "gun" legislative issue has become polarized (obviously).
The mis-reporting about Lanza and other comments made by such politicians (e.g., Pelosi).
Congressmen and Senators should represent their Constituents. Period.
Even if we don't like their votes at times.
I wonder how many citizens in Boston (very liberal and pro guncontrol) wished desparately that they had a pistol, shotgun, rifle, or assault rifle to protect themselves in the last few days.
Being told to hide in your homes and lock your doors, as ordered by the local authorities is about all you can do when you live in a city where only the police and the criminals have guns.
Lord forbid, you be in a position to shoot back if some cop-killing extremist breaks into your home while desparately looking for a place to hide.
Welcome to the "progressives" world!
RickThai
I have to say I was living near the british museum, in Russell square maybe 500M away from kings cross in july 2007 and maybe 200M from the bus and a collegue I occasional dealing with was killed.
i have to say that my personal lack of firearms bothered me at all, I don't know anyone who did, i don't think the police thought they needed to ask everyone to hide in their homes, though doing so might have saved that brazillian's life. The general feeling in the office was sadness, the need to get on with the job and how to get home in the evening.
but then in London we are somewhat used to terrorism; mostly by irish catholics with american funding, than muslims.... but at the end of the day its all the same and you just have to carry on regardless without fear or change; or they have won. Something america has yet to learn
Americans need to catch on to how they are manipulated by this whole "war on terrorism" conceit. It's being used to fund industries in the making of guns, (military), war, and now drones.Quote:
Originally Posted by hazz
Perhaps an even more frightening example is Lindsey Graham today wanting to declare the captured Boston Bomber as an enemy combatant---even if there was not an imment threat, but so we could extract even more intelligence from him. The rights we have are slipping away...and I don't mean gun rights.
But at least they can argue that they voted with their conscience, whether you agree with it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
What a fantastic reason to arm every homeowner. If someone had knocked on the door asking for sanctuary in a shoot-out, the chances are they'd get a faceful of lead in response. Plenty of documented cases of gun-mad nutters shooting innocent people (Trayvon Martin springs to mind).Quote:
Originally Posted by RickThai
There's a reason we don't give dangerous toys to children.
I don't the bill of rights allowed for suicide bombers and religious fanatics bent on wantonly murdering innocent people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
Oh yes it did as they are innocent until proven as such .Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Ummm.... I don't believe it did either. It did insure a standard of justice, a definition of it and a procedure for serving it. Beats kangaroo courts or lynchings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr EarlI don't the bill of rights allowed for suicide bombers and religious fanatics bent on wantonly murdering innocent people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
I don't think it allowed for advanced munitions either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Armour piercing ammo has been outlawed for some time now.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
The same set of dumb asses who support background checks for security clearances are against background checks for guns ... The NRA could piss in a plastic cup ... call it Mountain Dew ... And they'd drink it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
[quote=MrG;2427642]The 'enemy combatant' debate is raising additional questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by hazz
I consider them enemy combatants, basically.
The problem for that arguments is, they are American citizens.
Another issue is: why were Chechen muslims given asylum in the US? The family was on welfare also.
The US is becoming a laughing stock.
I wonder if you would be saying that if the chap wasn't a muslem and had used guns in a school to perpetrate his crime?
the chap is a common criminal no more, no less.... just like Adam Lanza, Seung Hui Cho, Timothy McVeigh each of whom demonstrate just how amateurish your 'enemy combatant' was. but then these chaps weren't Muslims so they probably are not quite so scary.
You should learn to control your fear and not give in to it. Then you would stop agreeing with actions that further enhance the status and success of this criminal and more importantly prevent yourself from being manipulated by the people who want you to give up the freedoms and protections enshrined in your constitution that prevent your country becoming an authoritarian police state. There are things which are far more important than the 2nd amendment.... you should defend those with just as much vigor.
Interestingly, a few days after my post, a Watertown, MA resident in an interview expressed the exact sentiment, that he wished he had access to a gun during this time frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaWhat a fantastic reason to arm every homeowner. If someone had knocked on the door asking for sanctuary in a shoot-out, the chances are they'd get a faceful of lead in response. Plenty of documented cases of gun-mad nutters shooting innocent people (Trayvon Martin springs to mind).Quote:
Originally Posted by RickThai
There's a reason we don't give dangerous toys to children.
It seems the liberal position is that most law-abiding citizens are not responsible enough or smart enought to decide when to shoot someone in self-defense. I'm surprised that they trust law-abiding citizens enough to own cars, buy propane and gasoline, etc.
Must be because of the kind of people they hang out with - I know in the USA the Democratic party is largely becoming the party of dysfunctional people. Give me! Give me! is becoming the single platform. The should redraw the donkey to have its mouth wide-open and an elephant holding a spoon full of food in its trunk to give to the "disadvantaged" donkey. It would be much more appropriate.
Bray on!
RickThai
Yes, I think I just spotted George Soros, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates lining up for food stamps. :rolleyes:
sounds like your a democrat then, perhaps you, piwanoi, boonmee and mr earl should have a get together, some kind of group hugging session so you can set up a local chapter.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickThai