100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Guns - What's up with the MSM bias?? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
People forget that Japan would not attack America because they said "behind every blade of grass there is a gun" Yep. If it gets around the world that citizens don't have any guns, the riff raff will come pooring in with their assault rifles from south America raping and pillaging. We sell massive amounts of assault weapons to Mexican bandits and now our politicians are pushing gun control for law abiding citizens? They call this mass shooting "unspeakable" and then all they do is exploit it in an attempt to convince the dumbed down public that there should be gun control or a banning of assault weapons. The smart American people ARE NOT GOING TO FALL FOR THAT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After reading this thread, I'm thinking everyone is blurring the lines to reflect personal feelings... The second amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted in 1791 and contains ONLY two clauses, both are pretty easy to understand...The first, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and..The second, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon" According to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, the second clause is "controlled" by the first clause...This is something many overlook...Because the Constitution was written to serve as a "Living document" the use of structuralism was necessary...Structuralism, or its interpretation, is based on what is good for society "as a whole" as opposed to what is good "for each individual"...How these two opposing approaches are interpreted is what fuels the problem of gun control ... Even the courts confuse interpretation... A lot has changed since 1791...Gun control legislation is an ongoing process....As society changes so does the need for more effective gun control....Taking individual rights away from responsible, law abiding citizens is certainly not the answer, but how do you justify preserving individual rights once those rights reach a point of monumental abuse?...I wish I knew... I think I know...every right comes with a corresponding obligation (duty). There is no escaping that; it is simply true. I hear a LOT of talk about "rights", but seldom hear so much as a peep about that right's corresponding duty. In my view, the two clauses of the second amendment go hand-in-hand. IT was never intended that the people should relinquish control of the nation to its government. What was intended was that the government was there to SERVE the people. The "well regulated militia" isn't a state militia, or the army, it is the people....ALL of them. THAT is why their right to bear arms can never be (lawfully) infringed. The people themselves must be ready at all times to fight all enemies both foreign and domestic. That is not a job to be left to the public servants. Your right to keep and bear arms is a sacred right and your last defence against the tyranny of your own government when it commits treason against the people. I assure you, if you fail in your DUTY to BE the militia that protects your nation, your RIGHT to bear the arms necessary to that duty WILL be infringed and you will inevitably have fallen under a well deserved tyranny as a consequence of your dereliction of duty. What does a good civilian militia look like?...Look at Switzerland. I'm not sure you understand what an American militia is...It dates back to 1687 and the colonial era...EVERY American colony had the authority through their charters to create militia units separate and apart from troops...Except for some religious exemptions, all able bodied white males were required by law to belong to a militia (read up on the Massachusetts Minute Men)...The militia was state regulated...It was the passing of the Uniform Militia Act by congress in 1792 that specified militiamen purchase and maintain their own weapons...Because this act created a situation that had no central control, the militia units quickly died out...On several occasions, the Federal government tried to no avail to reform the militia, but it was riddled with drunkenness, gambling, and other vices...Basically out of control......Compulsory militia was officially abolished by most states in 1840...All that remained was volunteer units that eventually became know as the National Guard...It was the battle at Fort Sumpter during the Civil War that called this "private" militia into service as a way to enlarge the Yankee Army...TheConfederates soon followed suite...By the end of the war, the militia had again all but died out, and again was resurrected in ex-confederate states where governors had the right to do so...Interest was renewed, units grew and bought uniforms and arms...Much of the action these units saw was in labor riots and the industrial violence that followed..In 1903, the Dick Bill made the National Guard official and divided it into two classes, official which was the National Guard and unofficial, which was the Reserve....So no, your interpretation of the second amendment clauses being tied together and used for the purpose of restraining government is wrong and does not support your argument....This does not mean I agree or disagree with your stand on individual right to bear arms, it only means I think the reasons you provide are wrong and should be pointed out.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After reading this thread, I'm thinking everyone is blurring the lines to reflect personal feelings... The second amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted in 1791 and contains ONLY two clauses, both are pretty easy to understand...The first, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and..The second, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon" According to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, the second clause is "controlled" by the first clause...This is something many overlook...Because the Constitution was written to serve as a "Living document" the use of structuralism was necessary...Structuralism, or its interpretation, is based on what is good for society "as a whole" as opposed to what is good "for each individual"...How these two opposing approaches are interpreted is what fuels the problem of gun control ... Even the courts confuse interpretation... A lot has changed since 1791...Gun control legislation is an ongoing process....As society changes so does the need for more effective gun control....Taking individual rights away from responsible, law abiding citizens is certainly not the answer, but how do you justify preserving individual rights once those rights reach a point of monumental abuse?...I wish I knew... I think I know...every right comes with a corresponding obligation (duty). There is no escaping that; it is simply true. I hear a LOT of talk about "rights", but seldom hear so much as a peep about that right's corresponding duty. In my view, the two clauses of the second amendment go hand-in-hand. IT was never intended that the people should relinquish control of the nation to its government. What was intended was that the government was there to SERVE the people. The "well regulated militia" isn't a state militia, or the army, it is the people....ALL of them. THAT is why their right to bear arms can never be (lawfully) infringed. The people themselves must be ready at all times to fight all enemies both foreign and domestic. That is not a job to be left to the public servants. Your right to keep and bear arms is a sacred right and your last defence against the tyranny of your own government when it commits treason against the people. I assure you, if you fail in your DUTY to BE the militia that protects your nation, your RIGHT to bear the arms necessary to that duty WILL be infringed and you will inevitably have fallen under a well deserved tyranny as a consequence of your dereliction of duty. What does a good civilian militia look like?...Look at Switzerland. I'm not sure you understand what an American militia is...It dates back to 1687 and the colonial era...EVERY American colony had the authority through their charters to create militia units separate and apart from troops...Except for some religious exemptions, all able bodied white males were required by law to belong to a militia (read up on the Massachusetts Minute Men)...The militia was state regulated...It was the passing of the Uniform Militia Act by congress in 1792 that specified militiamen purchase and maintain their own weapons...Because this act created a situation that had no central control, the militia units quickly died out...On several occasions, the Federal government tried to no avail to reform the militia, but it was riddled with drunkenness, gambling, and other vices...Basically out of control......Compulsory militia was officially abolished by most states in 1840...All that remained was volunteer units that eventually became know as the National Guard...It was the battle at Fort Sumpter during the Civil War that called this "private" militia into service as a way to enlarge the Yankee Army...TheConfederates soon followed suite...By the end of the war, the militia had again all but died out, and again was resurrected in ex-confederate states where governors had the right to do so...Interest was renewed, units grew and bought uniforms and arms...Much of the action these units saw was in labor riots and the industrial violence that followed..In 1903, the Dick Bill made the National Guard official and divided it into two classes, official which was the National Guard and unofficial, which was the Reserve....So no, your interpretation of the second amendment clauses being tied together and used for the purpose of restraining government is wrong and does not support your argument....This does not mean I agree or disagree with your stand on individual right to bear arms, it only means I think the reasons you provide are wrong and should be pointed out.... well, I DID specify that it was my view. I should point out that in a republic the people are the king and therefore the true heads of the state. The government is only there to represent the will of the people and administer their affairs. As the heads of the state, it is the duty of the people to protect and defend their nation. It is the duty of the government to accede to the wishes of the people. Should government ever exceed it's mandate and commit treason against the people, it is the duty of the people to get rid of it and replace it with one that can do its proper job. If the internal defence of the country is left to a government organized and controlled militia, it creates confusion as to who that militia should serve if the government and the people are at odds. With a government controlled militia, the orders will be coming from the government, not the people, and the militiamen will then be faced with a serious choice to make…Do they disobey orders and turn the guns on their commanders, or do they start shooting the people they were supposed to protect from their commanders? Far better to just have a completely civilian militia, regulated by civilians, armed and ready to take up arms if necessary against the domestic enemy, which in this case would be their government, the public servants who treasonously tried to become the public's masters. This is why my interpretation of the second amendment would be that the militia should be a civilian militia much like the one in Switzerland. IMO its every citizen's DUTY to be a militiaman. It is to fulfill that duty that the second amendment's RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms comes. In other words, the RIGHT to bear arms comes with the corresponding DUTY to be a militiaman. That's the way I see it anyway…other opinions may differ. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guns are not the problem. Gun control is not the answer. We have a serious problem with mentally ill people walking the streets to fend for themselves in this country instead of being committed to a hospital where they can receive medical and mental treatment and learn coping skills to handle daily life in society. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Colorado and shoot the place up, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon didn't shoot Gabriel Giffords in the head and 20 others, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Oregon and shoot those people, a person with mental health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into the Conneticut school and shoot all those people, a person with mental health issues did. Ban the mentally ill or at the very least make it easier for these people to get the attention they need and leave inanimate objects alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guns are not the problem. Gun control is not the answer. We have a serious problem with mentally ill people walking the streets to fend for themselves in this country instead of being committed to a hospital where they can receive medical and mental treatment and learn coping skills to handle daily life in society. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Colorado and shoot the place up, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon didn't shoot Gabriel Giffords in the head and 20 others, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Oregon and shoot those people, a person with mental health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into the Conneticut school and shoot all those people, a person with mental health issues did. Ban the mentally ill or at the very least make it easier for these people to get the attention they need and leave inanimate objects alone. most 'mental illness' is probably never diagnosed nor do most with mental illness realize they have it I could list a whole number of ailments I consider mental illness, but in a country of 'freedom' its not for me to dictate how people should feel or express themself,, short of killing and stealing anyhow since people are 'free' to be hateful, vindictive, unstable,,,etc,,, there is no real way to keep them from getting guns as citizens,,,its their right too unless or until they are documented with a 'mental illness' and most citizens dont want the 'stigma' they feel that comes with,, so good luck with that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good vid  ....but Soul, it's posted on Faux....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guns are not the problem. Gun control is not the answer. We have a serious problem with mentally ill people walking the streets to fend for themselves in this country instead of being committed to a hospital where they can receive medical and mental treatment and learn coping skills to handle daily life in society. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Colorado and shoot the place up, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon didn't shoot Gabriel Giffords in the head and 20 others, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Oregon and shoot those people, a person with mental health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into the Conneticut school and shoot all those people, a person with mental health issues did. Ban the mentally ill or at the very least make it easier for these people to get the attention they need and leave inanimate objects alone. Well to give you one concession first and that is the mental illness is an ignored sitution in this country. But guns do kill all by themselves when they misfire or are accidently set off. Second if the guns didn't exist then the death toll wouldn't be what it is. So the responsibility does lie with the guns and the stupid philosophy in this country that we need to carry them. The blood is on the gun "free for all" citizens and organizations as well as the killers hands for all of these type of killings and all the others gun related also. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven of the autopsies performed on the children of the massacre in Newtown showed between 3 and 11 gunshot wounds per child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good vid ....but Soul, it's posted on Faux....
The independently owned Raycom station is not owned by Faux but is an afiliate to the network....Faux does not control their content in any way. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Wed 12/19/12 10:54 AM
|
|
Guns are not the problem. Gun control is not the answer. We have a serious problem with mentally ill people walking the streets to fend for themselves in this country instead of being committed to a hospital where they can receive medical and mental treatment and learn coping skills to handle daily life in society. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Colorado and shoot the place up, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon didn't shoot Gabriel Giffords in the head and 20 others, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Oregon and shoot those people, a person with mental health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into the Conneticut school and shoot all those people, a person with mental health issues did. Ban the mentally ill or at the very least make it easier for these people to get the attention they need and leave inanimate objects alone. Well to give you one concession first and that is the mental illness is an ignored sitution in this country. But guns do kill all by themselves when they misfire or are accidently set off. Second if the guns didn't exist then the death toll wouldn't be what it is. So the responsibility does lie with the guns and the stupid philosophy in this country that we need to carry them. The blood is on the gun "free for all" citizens and organizations as well as the killers hands for all of these type of killings and all the others gun related also. That is such hogwash! Let's blame the Earth for storms like Sandy and ban her too! How about over 30,000 alcohol related traffic deaths and injuries per year...do we ban cars? By your definition "the blood is on the car!" and any 16 yr old with a license can own or operate one.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guns are not the problem. Gun control is not the answer. We have a serious problem with mentally ill people walking the streets to fend for themselves in this country instead of being committed to a hospital where they can receive medical and mental treatment and learn coping skills to handle daily life in society. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Colorado and shoot the place up, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon didn't shoot Gabriel Giffords in the head and 20 others, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Oregon and shoot those people, a person with mental health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into the Conneticut school and shoot all those people, a person with mental health issues did. Ban the mentally ill or at the very least make it easier for these people to get the attention they need and leave inanimate objects alone. Well to give you one concession first and that is the mental illness is an ignored sitution in this country. But guns do kill all by themselves when they misfire or are accidently set off. Second if the guns didn't exist then the death toll wouldn't be what it is. So the responsibility does lie with the guns and the stupid philosophy in this country that we need to carry them. The blood is on the gun "free for all" citizens and organizations as well as the killers hands for all of these type of killings and all the others gun related also.
Well the plan to disarm America seems to have worked on some people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guns are not the problem. Gun control is not the answer. We have a serious problem with mentally ill people walking the streets to fend for themselves in this country instead of being committed to a hospital where they can receive medical and mental treatment and learn coping skills to handle daily life in society. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Colorado and shoot the place up, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon didn't shoot Gabriel Giffords in the head and 20 others, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Oregon and shoot those people, a person with mental health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into the Conneticut school and shoot all those people, a person with mental health issues did. Ban the mentally ill or at the very least make it easier for these people to get the attention they need and leave inanimate objects alone. Well to give you one concession first and that is the mental illness is an ignored sitution in this country. But guns do kill all by themselves when they misfire or are accidently set off. Second if the guns didn't exist then the death toll wouldn't be what it is. So the responsibility does lie with the guns and the stupid philosophy in this country that we need to carry them. The blood is on the gun "free for all" citizens and organizations as well as the killers hands for all of these type of killings and all the others gun related also.
Well the plan to disarm America seems to have worked on some people. The libs will never learn! PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK!' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So true.
I am not afraid of the evil forces in this world. They are the doomed ones. In this, a universe of light, darkness is doomed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 12/19/12 12:33 PM
|
|
After reading this thread, I'm thinking everyone is blurring the lines to reflect personal feelings... The second amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted in 1791 and contains ONLY two clauses, both are pretty easy to understand...The first, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and..The second, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon" According to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, the second clause is "controlled" by the first clause...This is something many overlook...Because the Constitution was written to serve as a "Living document" the use of structuralism was necessary...Structuralism, or its interpretation, is based on what is good for society "as a whole" as opposed to what is good "for each individual"...How these two opposing approaches are interpreted is what fuels the problem of gun control ... Even the courts confuse interpretation... A lot has changed since 1791...Gun control legislation is an ongoing process....As society changes so does the need for more effective gun control....Taking individual rights away from responsible, law abiding citizens is certainly not the answer, but how do you justify preserving individual rights once those rights reach a point of monumental abuse?...I wish I knew... IMHO, emotions led us to these ridiculous conclusions, not logic, not reason, and certainly nothing intelligent can creep into the hysterical perfect storm of save the children meets evil black gun. Take historical data and chart total violence leading to death as a percentage of the total population of earth and what you discover is that there has never been a safer time to live than right now. The reality is that this whole debacle as it relates to gun control is a distraction from anything even approaching a solution, and it is for pure political gain, nothing else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guns are not the problem. Gun control is not the answer. We have a serious problem with mentally ill people walking the streets to fend for themselves in this country instead of being committed to a hospital where they can receive medical and mental treatment and learn coping skills to handle daily life in society. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Colorado and shoot the place up, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon didn't shoot Gabriel Giffords in the head and 20 others, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Oregon and shoot those people, a person with mental health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into the Conneticut school and shoot all those people, a person with mental health issues did. Ban the mentally ill or at the very least make it easier for these people to get the attention they need and leave inanimate objects alone. Well to give you one concession first and that is the mental illness is an ignored sitution in this country. But guns do kill all by themselves when they misfire or are accidently set off. Second if the guns didn't exist then the death toll wouldn't be what it is. So the responsibility does lie with the guns and the stupid philosophy in this country that we need to carry them. The blood is on the gun "free for all" citizens and organizations as well as the killers hands for all of these type of killings and all the others gun related also. That is such hogwash! Let's blame the Earth for storms like Sandy and ban her too! How about over 30,000 alcohol related traffic deaths and injuries per year...do we ban cars? By your definition "the blood is on the car!" and any 16 yr old with a license can own or operate one.... once again, cARS ARE MANUFACTURED AS TRANSPORTATON, not as tools of death just like rope has a non lethal purpose as well, even if it has the capacity to be used for a hanging or knives have a non lethal purpose, even if they have the CAPACITY to be used for killing but GUNS Have the capacity to kill or HARM,, thats it,, its their designed purpose,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guns are not the problem. Gun control is not the answer. We have a serious problem with mentally ill people walking the streets to fend for themselves in this country instead of being committed to a hospital where they can receive medical and mental treatment and learn coping skills to handle daily life in society. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Colorado and shoot the place up, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon didn't shoot Gabriel Giffords in the head and 20 others, a person with metal health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into that theater in Oregon and shoot those people, a person with mental health issues did. A semi-automatic weapon did not walk into the Conneticut school and shoot all those people, a person with mental health issues did. Ban the mentally ill or at the very least make it easier for these people to get the attention they need and leave inanimate objects alone. Well to give you one concession first and that is the mental illness is an ignored sitution in this country. But guns do kill all by themselves when they misfire or are accidently set off. Second if the guns didn't exist then the death toll wouldn't be what it is. So the responsibility does lie with the guns and the stupid philosophy in this country that we need to carry them. The blood is on the gun "free for all" citizens and organizations as well as the killers hands for all of these type of killings and all the others gun related also.
Well the plan to disarm America seems to have worked on some people. The libs will never learn! PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK!' seemed to work for slavery in america,,,just saying works for weed too, actually, (not saying it stops people from smoking weed, but certainly it deters many many others from smoking it whose main reason for abstaining is the law) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 12/19/12 12:45 PM
|
|
Really? I'm not so sure that slavery is not still practiced. It is only illegal now. I am speaking to human trafficking and slave labor of illegals.
Alcohol was sold illegally during prohibition. Guns will be too. And laws only "deter" law abiding citizens. (whimps.) The laws will make everyone into an outlaw. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 12/19/12 12:49 PM
|
|
once again, cARS ARE MANUFACTURED AS TRANSPORTATON, not as tools of death The response is to those claiming gun violence is our biggest problem, or making it out to be a bigger problem than it is.
HOWEVER, what you have said would probably get plenty of disagreement from anyone who has ever defended themselves with a firearm. I am sure they would refer to it as a tool of life, not death, especially if they didn't have to take one to save their own. works for weed too, actually, (not saying it stops people from smoking weed, but certainly it deters many many others from smoking it whose main reason for abstaining is the law) Based on what figures? Uptake of pot smoking has increased every year regardless of the severity of punishment.
Sorry, but you cant connect facts to conclusions to save your life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After reading this thread, I'm thinking everyone is blurring the lines to reflect personal feelings... The second amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted in 1791 and contains ONLY two clauses, both are pretty easy to understand...The first, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and..The second, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon" According to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, the second clause is "controlled" by the first clause...This is something many overlook...Because the Constitution was written to serve as a "Living document" the use of structuralism was necessary...Structuralism, or its interpretation, is based on what is good for society "as a whole" as opposed to what is good "for each individual"...How these two opposing approaches are interpreted is what fuels the problem of gun control ... Even the courts confuse interpretation... A lot has changed since 1791...Gun control legislation is an ongoing process....As society changes so does the need for more effective gun control....Taking individual rights away from responsible, law abiding citizens is certainly not the answer, but how do you justify preserving individual rights once those rights reach a point of monumental abuse?...I wish I knew... IMHO, emotions led us to these ridiculous conclusions, not logic, not reason, and certainly nothing intelligent can creep into the hysterical perfect storm of save the children meets evil black gun. Take historical data and chart total violence leading to death as a percentage of the total population of earth and what you discover is that there has never been a safer time to live than right now. The reality is that this whole debacle as it relates to gun control is a distraction from anything even approaching a solution, and it is for pure political gain, nothing else. we arent talking about the earth we are talking about the USA when we are supposed to be the best country on earth, it makes a difference that our child/firearm death rates so highly SUPERCEDE any other western nation thats not to be overshadowed by blending it in with the numbers around the EARTH why dont we go to Iraq or Iran and preach how this is the safest times ,,,cause its surely not for them neither is it for our AMERICAN children... |
|
|
|
|
