I just dont see it....

[OriginalShroom]

All of you guys are the ******* problem.

All of this "anger" is in your ******* heads, on message boards, on AM radio and cable news. It doesn't exist in real life.

In real life, we're no more "divided" than we've always been.

In real life, there's no chance of a "gun ban" in this country. In real life, there's no chance that Obama is going to cancel elections. In real life, there's no chance that Obama will deploy the military on US soil.

In real life, all of the nonsense that you've gotten so frothy about doesn't matter.

Yet somehow I just have the feeling that when it comes to abortion and other Left Wing issues, you just don't have a problem with people standing up for their "rights"

 

[theDoctorisIn]

All of you guys are the ******* problem.

All of this "anger" is in your ******* heads, on message boards, on AM radio and cable news. It doesn't exist in real life.

In real life, we're no more "divided" than we've always been.

In real life, there's no chance of a "gun ban" in this country. In real life, there's no chance that Obama is going to cancel elections. In real life, there's no chance that Obama will deploy the military on US soil.

In real life, all of the nonsense that you've gotten so frothy about doesn't matter.

Yet somehow I just have the feeling that when it comes to abortion and other Left Wing issues, you just don't have a problem with people standing up for their "rights"

I don't have a problem with anyone standing up for anything.

I have a problem with "the sky is falling!" rhetorical nonsense.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Because most people simply don't really care.

Then they shouldnt vote. And that goes for both sides.
The right to bear arms is one of those things that I feel very strongly about. The idea that half of America could care less is scary as hell.

Only about half the eligible voters in this country bother voting at all.

I understand that it's an important issue to you - and I know that you're not going to believe me - but I'm telling you that you don't have anything to worry about.

Unless there's an unprecedented, dramatic change in public opinion within the next 50 years, this country will never see a "gun ban" in any of our lifetimes.

I sincerely hope you're right. But the games the dems are playing with the 2nd are extremely dangerous. I dont see anything good coming from stirring up people with something that is so incendiary as our right to bear arms.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Then they shouldnt vote. And that goes for both sides.
The right to bear arms is one of those things that I feel very strongly about. The idea that half of America could care less is scary as hell.

Only about half the eligible voters in this country bother voting at all.

I understand that it's an important issue to you - and I know that you're not going to believe me - but I'm telling you that you don't have anything to worry about.

Unless there's an unprecedented, dramatic change in public opinion within the next 50 years, this country will never see a "gun ban" in any of our lifetimes.

I sincerely hope you're right. But the games the dems are playing with the 2nd are extremely dangerous. I dont see anything good coming from stirring up people with something that is so incendiary as our right to bear arms.

Is this thread about gun rights? Is that the issue that you think will tear America apart?

Take a ******* poll. Most of the liberals here ACTUALLY OWN GUNS.

You are being duped by talking heads. Liberals respect the 2nd Amendment and the right to own guns. But we realize that this right requires regulation. Stop freaking out. Guns will not be banned.

 

[Oldguy]

You are wrong. The left has said many times that they wish to ban guns. Whether or not it happens is beside the point they are still breeding anger. If it's not what they want why would Sideshow Biden try and act like the 2nd was about hunting when everyone knows it's not?

There is a very small but very vocal minority of "the left" who might "wish to ban guns" - and that minority has existed for a long time.

"Wishes" don't mean anything.

There have always been people in this country who "wished" for gun bans - just like there have always been people in this country who "wish" for bans on abortion, or "wish" for bans on income tax.

If thats the case why are dems not speaking out? It's no different then American muslims staying quiet about terrorism. If you believe in it,defend it.

Maybe it's because they know that in the Heller and McDonald cases, the Supreme Court finally ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Unless the Court sees fit to revisit that idea again (not likely) NOBODY CAN COME AND GET YOUR GUNS!

That does not mean that guns aren't subject to some kind of control (the Court affirmed that too), but THERE CAN BE NO BLANKET OUTLAWING OF GUNS WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Only about half the eligible voters in this country bother voting at all.

I understand that it's an important issue to you - and I know that you're not going to believe me - but I'm telling you that you don't have anything to worry about.

Unless there's an unprecedented, dramatic change in public opinion within the next 50 years, this country will never see a "gun ban" in any of our lifetimes.

I sincerely hope you're right. But the games the dems are playing with the 2nd are extremely dangerous. I dont see anything good coming from stirring up people with something that is so incendiary as our right to bear arms.

Is this thread about gun rights? Is that the issue that you think will tear America apart?

Take a ******* poll. Most of the liberals here ACTUALLY OWN GUNS.

You are being duped by talking heads. Liberals respect the 2nd Amendment and the right to own guns. But we realize that this right requires regulation. Stop freaking out. Guns will not be banned.

So you're saying they dont want to ban assault rifles?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There is a very small but very vocal minority of "the left" who might "wish to ban guns" - and that minority has existed for a long time.

"Wishes" don't mean anything.

There have always been people in this country who "wished" for gun bans - just like there have always been people in this country who "wish" for bans on abortion, or "wish" for bans on income tax.

If thats the case why are dems not speaking out? It's no different then American muslims staying quiet about terrorism. If you believe in it,defend it.

Maybe it's because they know that in the Heller and McDonald cases, the Supreme Court finally ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Unless the Court sees fit to revisit that idea again (not likely) NOBODY CAN COME AND GET YOUR GUNS!

That does not mean that guns aren't subject to some kind of control (the Court affirmed that too), but THERE CAN BE NO BLANKET OUTLAWING OF GUNS WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!

Why is that so hard to understand?

Then why are they trying to ban semi auto rifles when pistols cause way more deaths?
Going after a weapon that looks scary is stupid as hell.
I dont mind some regulations but time and again you hear dems trying to ban weapons of all kinds. That to me is stirring up shit for no good reason.

 

[KissMy]

All of you guys are the ******* problem.

All of this "anger" is in your ******* heads, on message boards, on AM radio and cable news. It doesn't exist in real life.

In real life, we're no more "divided" than we've always been.

In real life, there's no chance of a "gun ban" in this country. In real life, there's no chance that Obama is going to cancel elections. In real life, there's no chance that Obama will deploy the military on US soil.

In real life, all of the nonsense that you've gotten so frothy about doesn't matter.

 

[BlindBoo]

All of you guys are the ******* problem.

All of this "anger" is in your ******* heads, on message boards, on AM radio and cable news. It doesn't exist in real life.

In real life, we're no more "divided" than we've always been.

In real life, there's no chance of a "gun ban" in this country. In real life, there's no chance that Obama is going to cancel elections. In real life, there's no chance that Obama will deploy the military on US soil.

In real life, all of the nonsense that you've gotten so frothy about doesn't matter.

Doctor, are you trying to inject reality into the vien of this thread?

 

[Oldguy]

I sincerely hope you're right. But the games the dems are playing with the 2nd are extremely dangerous. I dont see anything good coming from stirring up people with something that is so incendiary as our right to bear arms.

Is this thread about gun rights? Is that the issue that you think will tear America apart?

Take a ******* poll. Most of the liberals here ACTUALLY OWN GUNS.

You are being duped by talking heads. Liberals respect the 2nd Amendment and the right to own guns. But we realize that this right requires regulation. Stop freaking out. Guns will not be banned.

So you're saying they dont want to ban assault rifles?

No, of course not. There is some support for that and we've done it before on a national level.

But, regulating what TYPE of firearm you can have is Constitutional and does not preclude you from owning a firearm at all. And, before you say it, such regulations are already in effect in regards to automatic weapons which cannot be owned without a license. In other words, we already have a legal precedent for regulating the ownership of ANY type of firearm right up to the point that you can't own any at all.

That far, they cannot go.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is this thread about gun rights? Is that the issue that you think will tear America apart?

Take a ******* poll. Most of the liberals here ACTUALLY OWN GUNS.

You are being duped by talking heads. Liberals respect the 2nd Amendment and the right to own guns. But we realize that this right requires regulation. Stop freaking out. Guns will not be banned.

So you're saying they dont want to ban assault rifles?

No, of course not. There is some support for that and we've done it before on a national level.

But, regulating what TYPE of firearm you can have is Constitutional and does not preclude you from owning a firearm at all. And, before you say it, such regulations are already in effect in regards to automatic weapons which cannot be owned without a license. In other words, we already have a legal precedent for regulating the ownership of ANY type of firearm right up to the point that you can't own any at all.

That far, they cannot go.

The 2nd isn't about the right to own a shotgun. It's about the right to own a weapon to keep gov in check. And a shotgun ain't gonna do it. Neither is a handgun.
Seems to me they want to get rid of the guns that can kill at a distance efficiently.
Now why would they want to do that?
It's all about control of the population.

 

[Katzndogz]

The country cannot stand. It is too divided on too many issues and policies. The democrat answer is to just accept what you find abhorrent.

This is a very big country. A strong country. It's death throes will take many years but to all intents and purposes it is over right now.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The country cannot stand. It is too divided on too many issues and policies. The democrat answer is to just accept what you find abhorrent.

This is a very big country. A strong country. It's death throes will take many years but to all intents and purposes it is over right now.

Yep,thats my fear. They wont do with force. They'll do it the same way they are doing it now.
A little bit at a time.
These days I feel like the frog in the sauce pan. And they're turning up the heat.

 

[Foxfyre]

Democrats do not understand the difference between partisanship and principle.

I won't go so far as to say that most Democrats don't understand the difference. But I have been having a back and forth with Rightwinger on another thread re this concept.

Is the goal to increase the scope and power of the government and reduce the power and rights of the people?. . . .and/or is the objective to shore up the leftwing base and keep folks voting Democrat? Call this Option #1.

Is the goal to remove all restrictions or regulation of any kind on the use and types of legal firearms?. . . .and/or is the objective to shore up the rightwing base and keep folks voting Republican? Call this Option #2.

If either of these is the goal, then whatever objectives are sought to achieve it will indeed be divisive and counter productive to what we want to achieve. And the fabric of this great nation will continue to be weakened and shredded.

Or is the goal a safer, more sane society? Call this Option #3.

If our common goal is Option #3, then we can have a national discussion on what is the best means of achieving that and we can be honest about the pros and cons of whatever objectives are proposed.

Is a reduction in one form of illegal gun crime worth putting people at higher risk for other forms of crime?

Is one's right to have their weapon of choice for self defense worth the risk of possibly putting somebody else at higher risk?

Will a reduction in certain kinds of weapons prevent what happened in Aurora or Newtown or any other of the tragic mass shootings? Would any of the measures now under consideration have prevented any of those tragedies? That almost all such tragedies occur in gun free zones?

Can we ignore the lessons of history and current evidence that restrictions on weaponry has not reduced violence over all anywhere it has been implemented? That a disarmed citizenry is at much higher risk from an out-of-control rogue government? That factors other than the presence of guns are much more likely to make people dangerously aggressive? At the same time, easy access to guns does figure into the deadliness of accidents, crimes of passion, suicide attempts, etc., but then again, would you rather be shot than knifed or dynamited or poisoned or whatever?

These are all legitimate arguments in a reasoned debate on how best to achieve a common goal.

Accusing each other and demonizing people and refusing to even consider all arguments for how to best achieve a goal is what makes the process divisive and tears us apart instead of getting things done.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Can't debate crazy.

 

[BlindBoo]

So you're saying they dont want to ban assault rifles?

No, of course not. There is some support for that and we've done it before on a national level.

But, regulating what TYPE of firearm you can have is Constitutional and does not preclude you from owning a firearm at all. And, before you say it, such regulations are already in effect in regards to automatic weapons which cannot be owned without a license. In other words, we already have a legal precedent for regulating the ownership of ANY type of firearm right up to the point that you can't own any at all.

That far, they cannot go.

The 2nd isn't about the right to own a shotgun. It's about the right to own a weapon to keep gov in check. And a shotgun ain't gonna do it. Neither is a handgun.
Seems to me they want to get rid of the guns that can kill at a distance efficiently.
Now why would they want to do that?
It's all about control of the population.

No I think it was about arming a mobile citizen fighting force to protect the nation in case of a invasion, while the federal government raised an offical Army.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

And from what I read here everyone here feels the same way. How in the hell can America stand with the division we now have?
I know I will never stand for a gun ban. I know the current path we are on will destroy our country considering all the countries that have gone down the road we are now traveling have either failed or are on the brink of collapse. Am I supposed to sit here and watch my country die? At what point do things explode?
I have never felt the anger I now have towards the left,nor have I felt the anger directed at me for what I stand for.

So what the hell are we supposed to do when neither side is willing to budge,because I know there are certain things I will not stand for....PERIOD.

I fear for the republic.

The sooner that both corporate-owned parties crash and burn by whatever means, the better.

There is no way some of us are going to choose between real life social fascists who would take my guns, are trying to zone my land, and for good measure have already given other races legal advantages not open to me - not to mention this real life group still believes Clinton was a liberal instead of an "out" ReagaNUT giving away US jobs faster than he sold out industrial America to financial America,

and,

halfwits too stupid in real life to understand that Reagan tripling the national debt in peacetime was an incredible breach of national security that set the stage for that filthy little halfwit inheritor's eight years of debauching the treasury and disgracing the US presidency, and/ or also too stupid to understand that both of these neocon scum were fronts for corporate access to the US Treasury.

No. The bridge is better than those choices.

So, anytime anyone is ready... It's showtime.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, of course not. There is some support for that and we've done it before on a national level.

But, regulating what TYPE of firearm you can have is Constitutional and does not preclude you from owning a firearm at all. And, before you say it, such regulations are already in effect in regards to automatic weapons which cannot be owned without a license. In other words, we already have a legal precedent for regulating the ownership of ANY type of firearm right up to the point that you can't own any at all.

That far, they cannot go.

The 2nd isn't about the right to own a shotgun. It's about the right to own a weapon to keep gov in check. And a shotgun ain't gonna do it. Neither is a handgun.
Seems to me they want to get rid of the guns that can kill at a distance efficiently.
Now why would they want to do that?
It's all about control of the population.

No I think it was about arming a mobile citizen fighting force to protect the nation in case of a invasion, while the federal government raised an offical Army.

A dedicated reading of the founding documents does not support your theory, however. On the contrary, the PRIMARY purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people a means of controlling their own government should it overstep the restrictions the Constitution put on it.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. . . .

. . . .It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

 

[bendog]

What "gun ban?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense. The primary reason for the 2nd Amendment was to make sure the militia was well regulated. When the whiskey farmers got rebellious in 1794, big government President Washington and Alexander Hamilton led a 13,000 man army (overwhelmingly militia) to put it down.

When the militias rose up under the CSA to confront the lawful, electoral, and constitutional elevation of Lincoln, the militias of the North and West supported the growth of the standing army, to defeat the South.

The militia was to support law and order.