reasontraditionandliberty.blogspot.com — A bill was introduced to Congress on Jan. 6th that would effectively erase the second amendment. It was passed from the House Judiciary Committee to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on Feb. 9th. But why do we have the right to own guns? That right allows the citizens to hold an implicit threat against the govt.
Mar 1, 2009 View in Crawl 4
caimanMar 1, 2009
The government has had orders of magnitude more fire power than you for decades, where was your revolution then?
thinkouttheboxMar 2, 2009
What part of,"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."More specifically "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms,..." Don't you understand?Yet another liberal with reading comprehension problems. You're a useful idiot, one that is borderline illiterate to boot. You are part of the reason why this country is in the condition that it is in. So go back to sticking your head in the sand and keep spinning the document that allows you to express your ignorance intact.
graphictruthMar 2, 2009
Two words: "Home Depot."And a big word "Inalienable" In such a time when the need to resist oppression is apparent - well. It's all physics and engineering, of a rather basic sort, is it not?Again - "inalienable." Not as in "you are not allowed or permitted to take this right away" but as in "this is an inherent, natural right." As in, how the hell do you prevent a man or a woman from making the best pointed stick and using it to get a better pointed stick?You should check out what can happen when you make a good potato cannon. Of course, you may only legally fire food items. And, since there's a good reason for that law, while one has the blessing of actually living under the rule of law, one should obey the law. But should the social compact evaporate - well, it's kind of an insult to call what you could do with that technology "improvised munitions." Now, whether or not the 2nd Amendment is a matter of state or individual rights is another matter - but my personal view is that for serious pro-constitutional mischief, the <i>big dawg</i> is right under your fingers. ...with a cellular telephone with video being a fine option for concealed carry.
thetehMar 2, 2009
No, YOU are part of the reason why this country is in the condition that it's in. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your views. It has to do with the way you argue them. "You're a useful idiot, one that is borderline illiterate to boot." Insulting people just because they disagree with you is an outdated, childish way of arguing politics. I could come right back at you and call you a gunslinger or some other stupid, derogatory name for pro-gun rights conservatives. But I'm not going to, because that's the sort of argument that proves nothing, it just offends people.As for gun rights, I realize perfectly well that they are guaranteed in the constitution. But I don't think it means that we should hand out guns for free at Wal Mart. I don't think it would do much harm for people to register guns like they do cars. Obviously, you disagree with me. But try to express that disagreement in a more constructive way. I don't really appreciate being called an idiot by someone who knows absolutely nothing about me. It wasn't a great way to start a Monday morning.
clvngodessMar 2, 2009
I think you are naive. You forget that many gangs are organized crime groups. I happen to live in a very interesting part of the world, called the East Side of L.A. It's very interesting. You might want to read up on our gangs, the number of them, the members, the guns, how entrenched and established they are, their history, and why LAPD, FBI, ATF, and the like can't seem to get a handle on them. It's an interesting little dilemma. Then I'd suggest a history lesson called the LA Riots of the 1990s. Focus on the gangs and what happened with the government and law enforcement when the gangs made their voice known. It's interesting too.
thinkouttheboxMar 2, 2009
The above comment was not directed at you it was directed at gnocchi.But to reply to you. How much more constructively do you need the argument explained? The language is spelled out clear as day in the US Constitution."...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."Are you ignorant of history? Gun confiscation comes after gun registration. In the likes of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. The list goes on. The Second Amendment was specifically put in there for us to be able to over throw a tyrannical government, and if you ask me ours is getting pretty damn close. Gun registration defeats the purpose because then they just send people to your house to collect the guns because they know you have them. If you fail to turn them over when they want them you go jail. And please don't make the argument it can't happen here, because Cuba didn't think they would be a communist country, the Jews in Germany didn't think Hitler would round them all up and execute them, People in Russia didn't think Stalin would kill over a 100,000,000 people. History repeats itself. That is a fact.That was the reason for it, you ought to read what he founding fathers said about the second amendment. They were pretty smart people all and all. We have a right to defend ourselves and it is none of the governments business if we use guns to do it. besides we have enough gun control as it is and that doesn't work. What good will more do? Gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens, criminals do not care about the law, that is why they are criminals. They will still get guns, and if they don't have guns they will use knives or baseball bats. Just like in the UK. Then gun registration adds a whole host of other problems, what the if the gov misplaces the paperwork, or the shop you bought it from messes up the paperwork, then you run into even more charges.
freeforall232Mar 2, 2009
@TheTaoOfBill - "No one needs an assault rifle." And I guess it's your job to decide what type of guns people should have?Gun laws should only apply to those who have commited a crime, otherwise you fall into the danger of prosecuting someone before they've done anything illegal. The reaction you see is not sensationalism, but a genuine concern that our government is usurping the authority of American citizens.If we turn a blind eye to HR 45, when will it be too late?
jflakerMar 2, 2009
This account has been closed by the user
caferrellMar 2, 2009Submitter
Don't put us all in the boat with the anti-Constitutionalists so easily there brother.Many of the people in this thread are libertarians and firm believers in the first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights.