Why We Feel The Need To Defend the 2nd Amendent

[Rebel - KGC]

Can you be certain of that?

OVER-SEA...? YEAH!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rebel - KGC]

It's witten on Hemp,it was living at one time.

HEMP...? You SERIOUS?

 

[bill from lachine]

Rebel,

Yep hemp be the stuff....that's what's left from marijuana after they all smoked their joints....lol.

On a serious note hemp was a very important cash crop and substituted for cotton in making fabric....back in the day....

I seem to recall that Randolph Hearst and Dupont teamed up to put pressure on the government to have them disallow it's growth because there was more profit using chemicals and pulp from trees to replace it.


Regards + HH

Bill

 

[worldtalker]

HEMP...? You SERIOUS?

Yes,it was also a LAW that you grew it.You really ought to research history.

 

[0121stockpicker]

The constitution is NOT A living document....

Amendment - to amend - to change.

So you are saying their had been no change to the interpretation of the constitution since it was written. No new laws, no laws done away with, no laws changed.

Yikes.

 

[Chadeaux]

In 2012 how many deaths or injuries were PREVENTED due to someone protecting themselves with a gun. In 2012 how many accidental deaths and injuries were CAUSED by lawful / legally owned guns. I don't know but the stats are out there might be helpful to get them posted to start framing these discussions with facts and stats instead of emotion and hyperbole. I'm in the middle with my thoughts on the subject but always like to base my belief on as much fact as possible.

Better question, but one that shoots holes through your theory is this: "How many INTENTIONAL DEATHS were prevented by the proper use of those weapons?"

Innocents dying is bad. To make it easier to INTENTIONALLY kill innocents with out the fear of reprisal is not a good thing . . . even if what's his name wants.

Accidents will happen. Just read the paper and look at all the traffic accidents, farm accidents, accidental falls, etc. For some reason the anti-gun kooks don't want to look at that. Either we ban all of the above or forget banning the guns.

 

[0121stockpicker]

The constitution is NOT A living document....

For anyone interested in a short summary of the constitutional process. Its upsetting that civics is no longer taught in the school system. Arm yourself with truth and knowledge.

The United States Constitution can be changed through the amendment process. Constitutional amendments are added to it, altering its effect. The first ten amendments, ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791, are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended seventeen additional times (for a total of twenty-seven amendments). Principles of the Constitution, as amended, are applied in courts of law by judicial review.

The Constitution guides American law and political culture. Its writers composed the first constitution of its kind incorporating recent developments in constitutional theory with multiple traditions, and their work influenced later writers of national constitutions. It has been amended over time and it is supplemented and interpreted by a large body of United States constitutional law. From Wikipedia.

I guess I'm not seeing that its not a living document - looks to be just the opposite.

 

[bill from lachine]

stockpicker,

Very good points.....the original document(s) were to be considered a framework/foundation on which future laws, etc....were to based....or a template if you will.....that's why I seem to recall the parties involved with putting it together were also called framers of the constitution.

Much like you need a solid frame or foundation when building a structure.

Regards + HH

Bill

 

[releventchair]

In 2012 how many deaths or injuries were PREVENTED due to someone protecting themselves with a gun. In 2012 how many accidental deaths and injuries were CAUSED by lawful / legally owned guns. I don't know but the stats are out there might be helpful to get them posted to start framing these discussions with facts and stats instead of emotion and hyperbole. I'm in the middle with my thoughts on the subject but always like to base my belief on as much fact as possible.

N.R.A. features a section in monthly publications which has been mentioned elsewhere. It lists sources for example what news paper reported it.
Americanrifleman.org. has an armed citizen blog. anyway over 2 million times a year is what studies show guns are used for personal protection.

Accidents and deaths i have no stats on ,c.d.c. likely does. Around here2009 last report i found just over 10 per 100,000 which is within 1 percent of national average,
Mind you though these are fire arm related deaths so they likely include l.e.o.,s and also justifiable homicide,suicide and all others.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Better question, but one that shoots holes through your theory is this: "How many INTENTIONAL DEATHS were prevented by the proper use of those weapons?"

Innocents dying is bad. To make it easier to INTENTIONALLY kill innocents with out the fear of reprisal is not a good thing . . . even if what's his name wants.

Accidents will happen. Just read the paper and look at all the traffic accidents, farm accidents, accidental falls, etc. For some reason the anti-gun kooks don't want to look at that. Either we ban all of the above or forget banning the guns.

So what you are saying is that a frisbee has once accidentally kill a person. So unless we are going to make all frisbees illegal then all guns should be legal? So because accidents happen, no one should look at gun accidents. Do these seems like reasonable arguments.

What do you think it means when a question is answered with another question instead of being answered?

 

[0121stockpicker]

stockpicker,

Very good points.....the original document(s) were to be considered a framework/foundation on which future laws, etc....were to based....or a template if you will.....that's why I seem to recall the parties involved with putting it together were also called framers of the constitution.

Much like you need a solid frame or foundation when building a structure.

Regards + HH

Bill

And that's what makes it do great. If it were a rigid document it would have by meaningless and obsolete a hundred years or more ago.

 

[Chadeaux]

So what you are saying is that a frisbee has once accidentally kill a person. So unless we are going to make all frisbees illegal then all guns should be legal? So because accidents happen, no one should look at gun accidents. Do these seems like reasonable arguments.

What do you think it means when a question is answered with another question instead of being answered?

It makes as much sense as what you are wanting done. Good people are good people. On the other hand, bad people are bad people. You won't get the bad people to register or turn in their weapons.

If he were a 6 year old, he would be expelled for this.

It isn't the guns, it is the HUMAN WHO PULLS THE TRIGGER that is dangerous.

What's his name pulls the trigger all the time by sending his drone strikes.

 

[0121stockpicker]

stockpicker,

Very good points.....the original document(s) were to be considered a framework/foundation on which future laws, etc....were to based....or a template if you will.....that's why I seem to recall the parties involved with putting it together were also called framers of the constitution.

Much like you need a solid frame or foundation when building a structure.

Regards + HH

Bill

And that's what makes it so great. If it were a rigid document it would have become meaningless and obsolete a hundred years or more ago.

 

[davest]

It makes as much sense as what you are wanting done. Good people are good people. On the other hand, bad people are bad people. You won't get the bad people to register or turn in their weapons.

If he were a 6 year old, he would be expelled for this.

It isn't the guns, it is the HUMAN WHO PULLS THE TRIGGER that is dangerous.

What's his name pulls the trigger all the time by sending his drone strikes.

Since you went there and TH seems to allow this, how do you feel about the 4500 lives lost due to lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Think the other guy and his vice should not be prosecuted for war crimes?

What I said before about twenty dead first graders still applies. In order for you to have the "right" to possess rapid fire large capacity weapons killings like that will be filed away under the "it was the human not the gun" heading and charged off to the cost of the "right".

Personally, I don't think anyone should take your guns, and I believe the founding fathers were right in placing the 2nd in the BOR. They also placed the words "well regulated militia" into the same amendment, when was the last time you mustered for drill? You can't eat a reeses peanut butter cup without swallowing both the chocolate and the peanut butter. (psst, that's an analogy)

 

[0121stockpicker]

It makes as much sense as what you are wanting done. Good people are good people. On the other hand, bad people are bad people. You won't get the bad people to register or turn in their weapons.

If he were a 6 year old, he would be expelled for this.

It isn't the guns, it is the HUMAN WHO PULLS THE TRIGGER that is dangerous.

What's his name pulls the trigger all the time by sending his drone strikes.

"It isn't the guns, it is the HUMAN WHO PULLS THE TRIGGER that is dangerous."

So you don't think there is any items that are more inherently dangerous than any other. Using that logic we should have no problem if folks had anthrax, nukes, sarin gas. Do you think that is a valid argument because of course none of them kill people, is the person who uses them that kill people. Would you feel safe in that kind of world, yes?

 

[releventchair]

Following persecution and media hype militias were painted scary and driven underground. A bit of research can find locals. One group here had
charges finally dropped in march 2012 after 2 years of being accused of plotting to overthrow the government.

 

[onfire]

Now that you got me laughing, thanks for that!

Actually, I would like an answer to the question, as, was there ever a direct order to fire onto our U.S, soldiers?
That is, if anyone knows the answer.

Yea In the movie PLATOON "On my pod"

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Since you went there and TH seems to allow this, how do you feel about the 4500 lives lost due to lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Think the other guy and his vice should not be prosecuted for war crimes?

What I said before about twenty dead first graders still applies. In order for you to have the "right" to possess rapid fire large capacity weapons killings like that will be filed away under the "it was the human not the gun" heading and charged off to the cost of the "right".

Personally, I don't think anyone should take your guns, and I believe the founding fathers were right in placing the 2nd in the BOR. They also placed the words "well regulated militia" into the same amendment, when was the last time you mustered for drill? You can't eat a reeses peanut butter cup without swallowing both the chocolate and the peanut butter. (psst, that's an analogy)

AND! "The other guy"; was a WHITE REPUBLICAN Prez. AND! A WHITE REPUBLICAN Vice-Prez...

 

[packerbacker]

Quote:" In order for you to have the "right" to possess rapid fire large capacity weapons killings like that will be filed away under the "it was the human not the gun" heading and charged off to the cost of the "right"."
Hello, he DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO POSSESS THAT GUN!!!...........his mommy did! If he only had 10-round magazines he would have been slowed down by mere seconds by putting in new , loaded magazines. If, like the fools allow in New York now, he would have had 7-round magazines it would have taken a few more seconds than the 10-round mags. to kill the same amount. What is rapid-fire? A semi-automatic, 9mm pistol that "usually" has a 9-round magazine? 3 of these magazines with a 9mm would have killed the same number of people in a classroom setting; you don't need a rifle for a 8-ft shot. What about a six-shot revolver? It fires a round every time the trigger is pulled, the SAME EXACT THING AN AR15 DOES! Is THAT a rapid-fire weapon? I could take that 6-shooter with 4 speed loaders and kill just as many in a classroom setting. It took the law a lot longer to arrrive, as is the case in most of these shootings, than a person would need to complete their task. How would eliminating AR15's from this planet stop anything? So, shall we get rid of the Old West cowboy gun? Sounds like an assault weapon to me using your logic. Why don't folks look at facts and common sense and forget about restricting just to restrict because you have no interest or knowledge of guns

 

[Chadeaux]

Since you went there and TH seems to allow this, how do you feel about the 4500 lives lost due to lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Think the other guy and his vice should not be prosecuted for war crimes?

What I said before about twenty dead first graders still applies. In order for you to have the "right" to possess rapid fire large capacity weapons killings like that will be filed away under the "it was the human not the gun" heading and charged off to the cost of the "right".

Personally, I don't think anyone should take your guns, and I believe the founding fathers were right in placing the 2nd in the BOR. They also placed the words "well regulated militia" into the same amendment, when was the last time you mustered for drill? You can't eat a reeses peanut butter cup without swallowing both the chocolate and the peanut butter. (psst, that's an analogy)

Since I went where? Told the truth? What about the 3,000 who died on 9/11 . . . just because no "good guys" were allowed to be armed?

Did the idea that weapons were illegal to carry on airliners stop the terrorists?

Would telling them that it isn't nice to do things like that stop them from doing it again? I don't think so, and you don't either. Force had to be met with force.

The reason it got brought up about someone in the white house pulling the trigger is actually because of his whining about his predecessor's actions . . . which he has doubled down on while claiming to be a peace monger.

Remember his promise to "close gitmo"?

Now, the educators who would suspend a 6 year old for making his hand into the same configuration as the bumbler in chief in the above photo see it as funny when what's his name and some gang banger / former gang banger do the same thing in public. That's funny. If a child does it, then it is threatening and deserves to be punished.

Can you not see the double standard? He, though, is the "anointed one" so it is ok. The media can't see the double standard. The media laughed at the photo and can't see the hypocrisy in it. Can you, or are you so political that it escapes your mind's ability to comprehend.

I have been ubercritical (yeah, a german word as we seem to be headed down the same path as those poor people of the 1930's) of George W and Cheney -- on other forums where political speak is not frowned upon. So you've picked the wrong person to accuse of being partisan.

For me, right is right (not the direction or political bend but the morality) and wrong is wrong. PERIOD!