Guys, we have a serious problem in the U.S. when it comes to gun violence. I believe there are many different reasons for this to include mental illness but it's absurd not to at least want to have the conversation about the issue.
And when I say a conversation, I mean a productive cordial conversation. I respect the 2nd Amendment but when it was written, the authors had no clue what the future would bring.
And when I say a conversation, I mean a productive cordial conversation. I respect the 2nd Amendment but when it was written, the authors had no clue what the future would bring.
There goes any objectivity that I thought you may have. Questionable? Maybe. Beyond Clear; no way in hell. Another mistake that you have made is your belief that I hate Vitterd. That couldn't be further from the truth. Vit claims that I am some right wing wacko which is another falsehood. I am in no man's land in this joint because I am a RINO, I have made that clear on several separate occasions.
I like busting Vit's chops for the hell of it and because it is challenging. We probably have more in common than he may think. Does that mean I believe everything he says? Absolutely not but who the hell cares what I or anyone else think about his posts.
I just had the best Father's Day with my wife and kids today. I am missing my old man, he was a good one. If he were here right now he would probably be disappointed in my behavior. No point in getting people upset or angry just for the fun of it. Don't worry, my sentimental stages usually don't last long, I will bounce back.
Happy Fathers Day
What this debate comes to is whether you believe in the Constitution wholly, or you don't. We all know 'progressives' don't.
'Context' is left wing spin, the words are unequivocal:
"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."
And I feel when the authors of the Constitution drafted the document, they had no clue what we'd be facing today. Their right to bear arms was in relation to something totally different with different things on their mind than what we face today.
Trust me, I'm all for the Constitution and Declaration and all they stand for but our world has drastically chanced over the last 200 years.
Human nature hasn't changed in 200 years. Having just broken away from Great Britain, the founders understood all too well that their government they were ratifying - for that matter, ANY government - might one day become just as tyrannical.
History proved them right. The 20th century was the bloodiest ever, for it was governments, not individuals, not "evil corporations", that waged the bloodiest conflicts ever.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that, "if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse but in the exertion of original self-defense," a right which he declared to be be "paramount". George Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
What's YOUR recourse if the government violates YOUR rights?
A responsible armed citizen is a soldier of liberty - an informed, independent Patriot with nothing to fear.
If left wing idiots want to walk around unarmed in the pursuit of some unachievable Utopia, that's their problem. Don't violate the rights of other free citizens in pursuit of your stupid naive ideology.
Firearms training was once a mandatory part of the school curriculum. Now it's "climate change" and "transgender studies"
I'm sorry, but NFL Trends summed it up best the other day: A NATION OF MORONS - stupid, lazy, dependent, uninformed, brainwashed idiots who shouldn't vote. You can read their opinions in this forum all day long.
Memo to the left:
100 percent correct. Many far right conservatives have a belief that the world was right in the early days of slavery....especially crazy people like sheriff joe.....they do not want change from the "good old days"....that never actually existed.
The authors could not have foreseen what the world would become.....which is why there is room for amendments to the constitution
What we are facing today:
0.000030% of Americans are victims of homicide by firearm.
0.00145% of Americans are victims of fatal & nonfatal gun crime (assault, burglary at gun point, rape at gun point, etc).
Further, guns are the most heavily regulated product in America. More regulated than tobacco and prescription drugs for example. The federal government is involved in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of guns.
I have a very, very hard time believing that the founders of America would be all worked up about a "problem" that affects a fraction of the population and where there are already more laws & regulations than you could possibly read in a week.
If your contention is that we have to do something, and that the something you propose does nothing to actually prevent mass shootings, then you're just using a tragedy for a broader political agenda.
====
Don't worry, Hillary Clinton already bravely called for "common sense" gun regulation yesterday.
LMFAO
"Common sense gun control"
"The Second Amendment means muskets only"
"You're a woman even if you have a penis"
"Businesses don't create jobs"
"Climate Change is the greatest threat"
"Obama's handling of the recession was the epitome of perfection"
"Unemployment checks fastest way to create jobs"
"ISIS is a JV team"
"A bad deal with Iran is better than no deal"
"Guam will tip over and capsize"
"The Second Amendment means muskets only"
"You're a woman even if you have a penis"
"Businesses don't create jobs"
"Climate Change is the greatest threat"
"Obama's handling of the recession was the epitome of perfection"
"Unemployment checks fastest way to create jobs"
"ISIS is a JV team"
"A bad deal with Iran is better than no deal"
"Guam will tip over and capsize"
This topic is another (along with "climate change") where I do not subscribe to the popular viewpoints of my many liberal colleagues and Democrat friends
The notion that we (as a citizenry) can Control the individual choices of any of our fellows is fraught with error
No matter how many laws, regulations, rules the citizenry creates, the free will of Americans (or any other human beings in any country_ will prevail
Rather than spend even a moment lobbying for increased rules and regulations pertaining to guns, it seems far more sensible for me as an individual to make a firm commitment to non-violence against my fellow human beings.
We - as a nation - have all the rules and laws in place that we need for at least our remaining lifetime.
The only work each of us needs to do is spend more time on our own personal behaviors, thinking and ethics.
Trying to control other people seems not only absurd, but a frankly vain and foolish way to spend one's time
The notion that we (as a citizenry) can Control the individual choices of any of our fellows is fraught with error
No matter how many laws, regulations, rules the citizenry creates, the free will of Americans (or any other human beings in any country_ will prevail
Rather than spend even a moment lobbying for increased rules and regulations pertaining to guns, it seems far more sensible for me as an individual to make a firm commitment to non-violence against my fellow human beings.
We - as a nation - have all the rules and laws in place that we need for at least our remaining lifetime.
The only work each of us needs to do is spend more time on our own personal behaviors, thinking and ethics.
Trying to control other people seems not only absurd, but a frankly vain and foolish way to spend one's time
Just look at our government's now decades old foreign policy.
However one might support (or not) the use of our military, our goverment tells a sovereign people "Comply with our orders on how to live in your country or we will bomb, shoot and otherwise kill you". And yet, shockingly those same people pretty much fail to comply.
So therefore it seems rather unlikely that threats of a fine or even a jail sentence can deter free-thinking citizens (of any country) from doing pretty much whatever they want.
We could modify, enhance, multiply the various federal and state laws pertaining to guns and even ramp up actual enforcement of said laws/regulations and anyone who is intent on defying those rules will do so with impunity
This poor fuck who shot up the church in Charleston did not need "Stricter gun control laws" to interupt his choice to be violent.
Rather, he would have perhaps been making different choices if he had not been raised by parents and/or lived in a community that promotes the message that black Americans are subhumans and worthy of destruction
So enough discussion about "more gun control"
Spend your time teaching your kids that all human beings are worthy of respect and that violence against their fellow humans is wholly counterproductive.
Then and only then do we have a legitimate shot at a reduced level of violence both in our country and in other countries around the world
However one might support (or not) the use of our military, our goverment tells a sovereign people "Comply with our orders on how to live in your country or we will bomb, shoot and otherwise kill you". And yet, shockingly those same people pretty much fail to comply.
So therefore it seems rather unlikely that threats of a fine or even a jail sentence can deter free-thinking citizens (of any country) from doing pretty much whatever they want.
We could modify, enhance, multiply the various federal and state laws pertaining to guns and even ramp up actual enforcement of said laws/regulations and anyone who is intent on defying those rules will do so with impunity
This poor fuck who shot up the church in Charleston did not need "Stricter gun control laws" to interupt his choice to be violent.
Rather, he would have perhaps been making different choices if he had not been raised by parents and/or lived in a community that promotes the message that black Americans are subhumans and worthy of destruction
So enough discussion about "more gun control"
Spend your time teaching your kids that all human beings are worthy of respect and that violence against their fellow humans is wholly counterproductive.
Then and only then do we have a legitimate shot at a reduced level of violence both in our country and in other countries around the world
In which nation or nations did this occur? My POV is the majority of the time our nation has gone to war we were doing so to remove an entity that was doing the above to its people and preventing the freedom of the people. We did so to remove the tyranny, not replace it. Then we left. Although some places seem to pull us back in. Not saying we are perfect. But I love how you leftys toss that meaningless 'Sovereign' word around.
The American military has never removed their presence from any nation on earth once they got their boots on the ground
I realize many of my fellow Americans support this, my mention was only to note the futility of attempting to control other people by whatever means.
The analogy could have as easily been the failed attempts of Russia/USSR to take over Afghanistan, to hold control of the European Eastern Bloc, the Chinese trying to control Japan in the 19th century, the Brits hoping to control the USA in late 18th century/early 19th century; the Brits attempting to control the many nations they once ruled (India, South Africa, Ireland etc)
If guns, bombs and other violent "enforcement" will not rein in a population of human beings, then "stricter laws" within a domestic society are an even more absurd method to try and "Control" humans
I realize many of my fellow Americans support this, my mention was only to note the futility of attempting to control other people by whatever means.
The analogy could have as easily been the failed attempts of Russia/USSR to take over Afghanistan, to hold control of the European Eastern Bloc, the Chinese trying to control Japan in the 19th century, the Brits hoping to control the USA in late 18th century/early 19th century; the Brits attempting to control the many nations they once ruled (India, South Africa, Ireland etc)
If guns, bombs and other violent "enforcement" will not rein in a population of human beings, then "stricter laws" within a domestic society are an even more absurd method to try and "Control" humans
