I just dont see it....

[Foxfyre]

I gave the link to support my argument Jake. Where is yours?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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 fucking 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.

LIberals have nothing against the right to bear arms. They just want to modify it in any way they see fit.

I see.

It's fun watching Orwellian doublethink in action, isn't it?

 

[bendog]

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.

And the militias were seen as counterweight to any undue infringement by the federal govt. Not having a standing army limited the ability of the feds to coerce the states through force. And, any attempt by the feds to do so, could potentially see the militias of mult states oppose it.

In fact, that was the view of the South in 1861. But, Scalia was correct when he relegate the milita clause to the trashcan of history. That issue was settled (much to the disappointment of state legislators in Miss and SC today) and there are no militias.

Personally, I agree with Scalia and the four who joined him that despite this, there is a fundamental right to defend ones self with a hand gun or other commonly used firearm.

 

[Goodoledays]

1,379 days to go...

And 1,300 of those days are probably for partying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Absolutely correct: "Personally, I agree with Scalia and the four who joined him that despite this, there is a fundamental right to defend ones self with a hand gun or other commonly used firearm."

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

Who tells you these things? No one rose up in the CSA to confront anyone, by the way. The Southern States peacably left the union and were promptly invaded by a largely conscripted army.

The militia comprises everyone who is able to fight in the country. The people may regulate militias as they wish. They can form them, dissolve them as they please.

The mistaken belief that the federal government somehow controls the militia is prevalent among victims of public schooling. So you are excused for your ignorance.

 

[bendog]

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 fucking 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.

LIberals have nothing against the right to bear arms. They just want to modify it in any way they see fit.

I see.

It's fun watching Orwellian doublethink in action, isn't it?

yeah, I'm enjoying your fear of the war with Eastasia.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I gave the link to support my argument Jake. Where is yours?

Daniel J. Schultz is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles and President of LSAS, a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Crackerjaxon.

The CSA fired on Ft Sumter, an offensive act of war, and AL executed the Old South, most properly for the future of the country.

Scalia is right, you are wrong, move along, you have nothing to add of worth.

 

[bendog]

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.

Who tells you these things? No one rose up in the CSA to confront anyone, by the way. The Southern States peacably left the union and were promptly invaded by a largely conscripted army.

The militia comprises everyone who is able to fight in the country. The people may regulate militias as they wish. They can form them, dissolve them as they please.

The mistaken belief that the federal government somehow controls the militia is prevalent among victims of public schooling. So you are excused for your ignorance.

Where do you get support for your notion that there is some national milita comprised of all able bodied people? Actually assuming there was some actual historical support for the concept, it'd ge "white free men."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Scalia ended the concept of militia today.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

There is no common goal. That's where the whole argument falls apart. There is no common goal. The goals are different for each side, which is broken down into smaller increments of "tribe".

 

[Mac1958]

.

The only way this gets fixed (without some kind of catastrophe as a motivation) is if our "leaders" actually lead.

People of significant national stature, preferably from each end of the spectrum, are going to have to demonstrate real bravery and denounce the division pimps and radicals on their end in the name of working together with the other side to deal with our nearly insurmountable problems.

This is theoretical only, of course, because I don't see anyone out there with both the stature and the bravery to do this.

.

 

[Redfish]

is this thread about the civil war or secession?

if its about secession, lets do it. set up the united states of libtardia and the united states of america.

the libtards get the west coast, the north east, and Detroit. we get the rest.

 

[Redfish]

.

The only way this gets fixed (without some kind of catastrophe as a motivation) is if our "leaders" actually lead.

People of significant national stature, preferably from each end of the spectrum, are going to have to demonstrate real bravery and denounce the division pimps and radicals on their end in the name of working together with the other side to deal with our nearly insurmountable problems.

This is theoretical only, of course, because I don't see anyone out there with both the stature and the bravery to do this.

.

of course you are right, but who would those leaders be? got any names? I see a few on the right, but can you name one fair minded leader on the left?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The solution will come from neither far right or far left.

It must come from the mainstream of right of center to left of center: that is where derives the wealth and talent and industry of America.

 

[bodecea]

All of you guys are the fucking problem.

All of this "anger" is in your fucking 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.

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?

I am the Left and I have no intention of asking for any gun ban....I have guns myself. I laugh everything you frightened little chicken littles start clutching your pearls and crying.

 

[Redfish]

The solution will come from neither far right or far left.

It must come from the mainstream of right of center to left of center: that is where derives the wealth and talent and industry of America.

yes, and any time a person like that steps up. he or she is crucified by the left wing media. Until we fix the media, nothing will change.

 

[Redfish]

All of you guys are the fucking problem.

All of this "anger" is in your fucking 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.

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?

I am the Left and I have no intention of asking for any gun ban....I have guns myself. I laugh everything you frightened little chicken littles start clutching your pearls and crying.

I went out this morning looking for some 38 special ammo. not one gun store had any. one told me they had some at 7am but it was gone by 8am. all of the on-line ammo guys are sold out.

should have bought some remington stock.

 

[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.

There is no common goal. That's where the whole argument falls apart. There is no common goal. The goals are different for each side, which is broken down into smaller increments of "tribe".

I agree. Which is why we have the bitter partisanship that we see. When the goal is to have control and maintain a voting bloc to keep oneself in power, there can be no common goal.

Which is why I keep beating the drum that we must remove all power of those in federal government to benefit themselves in any way that does not benefit the whole. Which means that we remove all power from the federal government to use tax money or obligate the taxpayer for any form of benefit, gratuity, charity, relief, or other bribe.

And THEN we will again elect true public servants who will set a common goal and argue the best way to accomplish it rather than arguing for the legislation that will most enrich themselves.