Ooops !!! hello, mac
where are ya, buddy
hey, y'all Mericans! holy smoke, you can have yer guns, we don't mind. Just keep the AK-47s below the 45th, okay?
Thanks!
t
The Second Amendment
by Englishman 81 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Simon
But you said in your first post that it was about not wanting cheap UK tea. You said nothing about taxation or representation. Did you discover New Light? Now, it was about taxes? Nevertheless, you are now correct.
Yes, it was about not wanting cheap untaxed tea. How it is sold to people now as history is that they were standing up against oppression when the reality is that they (the rich landowners) were the oppressors and wanted more land, control of slaves and no competition.
Just because they went on to write the history doesn't make their version correct.
-
Mac
If it'll make a feel better, Simon...
I'm sending you some Maxwell House Coffee...
Flush it down yer toilet or toss it into the river...
doesn't matter to me cuz I know Folger's s the best
mac, tea fer two and two fer tea class
-
OldSoul
I do not currently own a firearm. I have owned them in the past. I believe the Second Amendment could not possibly be worded more clearly.
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.
We do not seem to have any difficulty at all understanding who is referred to by "the people" in this one:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Despite the fact that there's damn all we could do if our government stopped honoring this clause of the contract, we still feel it is an important one right down to today. Here are two more examples where the meaning of "the people" is clearly understood:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The right of the people ... shall not be infringed. It is clear language, and an uncomfortable to read for anyone who would rather infringe on someone else's rights. But once you open that door, look at what else you risk losing. Currently, because of an armed citizenry, our government cannot go beyond certain boundaries without tilting the country into civil war.
I disagree that "we the people" would not stand a chance against our government. I am likewise certain that those who give up on their ability and right to defend themselves against their government would be the first oppressed. I believe that there are still among us many individuals for whom the statement, "Give me liberty, or give me death," rings loudly and clearly, today. I believe that if not for them, there would be very little liberty.
BTW, they aren't all Republicans. They aren't all anything. They are from every background this country has to offer.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
Terry
I disagree that "we the people" would not stand a chance against our government. I am likewise certain that those who give up on their ability and right to defend themselves against their government would be the first oppressed. I believe that there are still among us many individuals for whom the statement, "Give me liberty, or give me death," rings loudly and clearly, today. I believe that if not for them, there would be very little liberty
This has been demonstrated already rather clearly. It was called the CIVIL WAR.
The south lost that one but, continues to this day to refight the battles and pretend the loser has a heritage one should be proud of. Meanwhile, nearby, the flowers and weeds in the vast cemetaries do battle in their honor.
T.
-
Terry
just a thought.......
someone just broke into yer home and is about to rape yer wife and kill yer chitlins...
which is faster...911 or old faithful?
Take a look at Australia and the effectiveness of banning guns and the crime rate...
*love the old: "If guns were outlawed...only criminals would own guns"...so true... they will...
and isn't that a a lovely and intelligent scenario?*
mac, shoots Terry class
Sigh....
This old chestnut again....
Very well, here goes...
I have a responsiblity to myself and my family to secure my home with locks, alarms and due diligence. Should these be breeched WHILE I AM ON THE PREMISES I would shout very loudly to get the attention of the intruder (who won't know if I'm armed or not.) *when I was single this happened and I scared the bejeezus out the burglar who ran like hell.
If we were creeped on and suddenly surprised by an armed rapist (out of a sound sleep) my weapon would be rather inconsequential anyway.
If the intruder were not armed with a weapon and I made a lunge for the weapon drawer (in a house full of kids with an appropriate lock on the trigger-guard) I think the intruder might still have an advantage.
You see, you have to craft these hypothetical scenarios.....just so....to get the proper combination of fear and liklihood in place to create an atmosphere of fear. Then, the weapon is always miraculously at hand and the victim clear-headed and accurate.
But, in real life....just tain't so. Real life is messy and unpredictible and the good guys aren't set in their minds to do another person harm automatically. Any hesitation can bring unexpected consequences.
A baseball bat right next to the bed is as much of a weapon of opportunity and more easily accessible. I have one. In 58 years of life I've had one burglar and a scream sent him packing. It turned out to be the neighbor's kid (about 17 years old) trying to steal something. I would feel real proud right now knowing I'd shot the kid, now wouldn't I?
T.
p.s. Criminality is a mindset. Criminals are lazy opportunists. More than half the battle against them is not affording an opportunity. The night I had the 17 year old burglar I was sleeping with my outside door open!! I mindlessly asked for trouble.
-
Bendrr
Bendrr
If your argument made any sense whatesoever then your gun-toting citizens would ensure a safe and peaceful society. The fact that your society is one of the least likely to be descibed that way tends to suggest that having "lots of guns" about makes things better, not worse.
Where guns are illegal, they're still in use. Same with drugs and everything else. Crack cocaine is illegal but I'd bet you I could go get some within the next half hour. A lot of good that ban did, right?
So the answer is to legalise everything is it?! Give up? Duh?!? Maybe you just live in a naff neighbourhood or you are just proving my point about American society and how allowing armed civilians doesn't stop crime but makes it easier. Common sense. We have it, you don't.
There's a saying here in the U.S., "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" and it is so true.
I won't tell you the sayings we have here in the U.K. ... about Americans
Oh go ahead and tell me, I could trump all of the sayings with one reply: "we've been called worse by better!" Not that I would, of course. My argument does make sense. What doesn't make sense is your statement that our "society is one of the least likely to be described [as safe and peaceful]." That's absurd! Armed citizens do indeed stop crimes from occuring and armed potential victims do indeed make crime more difficult for the evildoers. And no, the answer is not to legalise everything. That was never my point. My point was (and is) that no matter what you make illegal, the criminals will still get it and use it, be it drugs, guns, whatever. Yes there is a real and dangerous problem with gun crime. No one is debating that. However the answer is not to disarm law-abiding citizens because legal gun owners aren't the problem. Mike.
-
Bendrr
All the scary scenarios we hear about home invasion, robbery, rape, etc. are contrived to make us feel fearful and, out of that fear, turn to weapons to solve our crisis of courage.
I can't believe what I'm reading!
Home invasions, robberies, rapes, carjackings, et al are very real and very deadly.
Making the choice to arm oneself legally to defend life and property is no "crisis of courage", and I should add that that's about the stupidest phrase I've ever heard in the whole gun debate.
Criminals commiting a home invasion or robbery or any other crime are going to start out with the advantage over their victims, be it suprise, superior numbers, or the criminal(s) being armed themselves. Legally obtaining firearms, being properly licensed and trained, a gun owner has not only evened the odds but has given him or herself an advantage as well.
Once you allow that option your odds of having somebody die around you go up dramatically.
You're making too much of an assumption. I have two nephews, ages 11 and 6. My pistol and shotgun are loaded and within reach when they visit. They won't touch the guns. They will actually refuse to touch the guns until I -- and only I -- unload them and show them an empty chamber. And even then, they handle the guns as if they still might discharge. I already know what your response to that is going to be, and believe me when I tell you, I'm going to shoot it down. (pardon the pun) The only odds of having somebody die around me that have gone up since I first armed myself in 1992 have been the odds that someone out to cause me harm would be met with lethal force. That's something the law allows and something I'm prepared to do if necessary. I have drawn my gun 3 times to protect myself and property. Fortunately, no lives were lost, but also there was no crime commited. Let me pose you this question that no gun-hater has ever been able to answer for me. On one of those occasions, I was a pizza delivery driver. I kept my .45 within reach while on deliveries, especially considering that we'd had a rash of robberies of drivers at the time. While driving to one delivery at night, a carload of individuals began chasing me. It wasn't road rage, I hadn't cut them off or anything, they pulled out of a parking lot to chase me. They knew I was a driver, as I had a lighted sign on my car. (that was the last time I used that sign, btw) They chased me for 2-3 miles, literally bumper-to-bumper. I swerved into a parking lot, spun the car around and got out. They came speeding up ready to jump out; their car doors were already opening. I had my car between me and them when I stopped, and when I saw the doors opening, I pulled out my .45 and aimed it at them. The driver immediately stopped, the doors closed again, and they turned and raced away. Now, here comes the question for you. Had I been unarmed, at some point someone was going to rob me. Can you and your anti-self-defense friends garantee me that if I don't use a gun to resist crimes against myself or property, that if I just give them what they want, I will be completely unharmed. I mean not even one little bruise, let alone getting shot or stabbed. I'd really like to know your answer to that. What really pisses me off is how the left sheds more tears over a criminal who dies while trying to harm some armed victim than they do over what happens to unarmed victims who don't resist. Mike. -
Bendrr
And here's another tidbit for y'all to chew on.
You might as well go ahead and disparage cops in Georgia along with us "rednecks".
Every time I've been pulled over, I of course told the cop that I was armed and presented my firearms license. Their procedure is to unload the weapon, and they always have. But after checking my license, EVERY SINGLE TIME, the cop has reloaded my weapon, including a round in the chamber, and handed it back to me.
Gee! Let's think about that, shall we? They didn't have to put the magazine back in, did they? And they certainly didn't have to chamber a round, did they? You'd think I'd be handed the gun and ammo separately. But the cop has always put the mag back in, chambered a round, carefully dropped the hammer, and handed it to me. Handed it to me holding it by the barrel so that I would take it by the grip.
That to me speaks volumes of what law enforcement thinks of armed citizens. And that to me carries a hell of a lot more credibility than anything the anti-gun crowd has to say.
Mike.
-
bigboi
After reading some of James Madison's thoughts, I have to say that he was of the opinion that the citizens should be allowed to arm themselves with whatever kind of weapon they chose. Now, it would be hard to argue that was the intent of all the framers of the Constitution and the version of the Bill of Rights added on later to amend it in order to guarantee certain civil liberties. What he envisioned was the entire citizenry being part of a national militia that held the government in check from abusing civil liberties through the force of arms. He also used what has become the tired rhetoric of arms somehow being a deterrant to crime. This is in line with what many people on the "pro-gun" side of the debate have to say about the issue.
These are of course different times and the matter of gun ownership and the kinds of weapons people are allowed to have should be held to some sort of scrutiny. Well maybe not gun ownership, because it states in the Bill of Rights that government cannot infringe upon the peoples right to arm themselves. However the types of weapons that are sold should be considered. First, the capability of the military is such nowadays that no militia of ordinary citizens can hope to resist it. When there have been uprisings and attacks of government agencies, it's been mostly the glare of the public that's stopped outright butchering of resisters. If the government wanted to put down any uprising it could do with minimal effort on it's part no matter what types of weapons we had at our disposal. Therefore i don't see the need for people to be allowed to buy 50 caliber rifles that can shoot and put holes through lead plates a mile away. Assault weapons can be easily converterted to automatics and are rally unneccessary. These are weapons used by nefarious people to kill cops, each other and the all too occasional innocent bystander. Simply put times have changed, guns aren't gonna stop any government agency from taking your rights away. The civilian side lost that capability sometime after the war of 1812 when guys got really serious about blowing a motherfucker to pieces.