Posted on 12/15/2012 8:54:23 AM PST by Republican Wildcat
I agree there is such a problem with the second amendment. However, it can be fixed with a simple amendment. The constitution needs to allow private ownership of nuclear devices. I'm sure, had the Founding Fathers anticipated nuclear bombs, private ownership of them would have been written into the constitution.
I believe it would be more appropriate to talk about the gun violence that started and perpetuated the reigns of terror in Russia, Germany, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc, etc, etc. One early act before the slaughter of millions was to disarm the populace, and there are many wannabe tyrants and their useful idiots wanting to do that here now as well.
Got a used SKS folder the other day. A thing of simple, functional beauty. NOT an “assault rifle,” so a bit less likely to be confiscated in the early stages along the slippery slope. Also low tech enough to keep running long after the last gunsmiths and replacement parts are post-SHTF history.
Typical liberal author. Nothing but mean-spirited name calling and a belligerent response to ban guns. The author’s “Lord and Savior” Obama, mmm mmmm mmmmm, has killed ten times as many people with his illegal gun running to Mexican drug lords than this school just experienced.
And while we’re at it........yesterday in China, a guy went into a school and stabbed 22 kids.....let’s ban knives, inasmuch as more kids are killed in auto accidents....let’s ban cars, and hundreds of kids die each year of drowning....let’s ban water and of course we can’t forget those poor children who die each year (born and unborn) at the hands of their parents...let’s ban parents.
Society should get off the kick of civil rights for nuts and put them into institutions and not out on the street.
Bottom line those unfortunate victims would have had a better chance of being alive today if an armed security gurad was keeping watch. But we must be politically correct ie “Gun Free Zone”.
Dear @sshole: nobody's afraid of you, and we're not sending hits to your blog. You want to have a discussion, sign up and we'll be very happy to chew your "arguments" into little tiny pieces and spit them out.
Bookmark.
The sad part about our lake is around the sides it’s a nice sandy bottom. At least 30 ft out. The lake weeds however.. YIKES!
we have lost anchors (wait, you didn’t tie the rope either?!?!?) prescription sun glasses (guy was an idiot for getting on the tube with them on and ME at the helm..) and yes, even a boat!
This lake is a run off lake, it’s only filled by snow/rain but it does drain off in to a creek when they open the dam.
First, there are already more than 20,000 gun control laws actively on the books today and none of them prevented this tragedy. Second, millions upon million of people in America own guns and 99.9999% of them have never and will never do anything like this.
So, let’s lose the hysteria and analyze the facts - a PERSON did this, NOT a hunk of steel. In Portland, a PERSON killed two people in the mall, NOT a hunk of steel! In Denver, a PERSON shot up the theater, NOT a hunk of steel!!
NONE of these facts will matter to the gun-grabbing nanny-staters, because they focus solely on the gun and nothing else. So, what happens if ALL guns are outlawed and forcibly collected by the feds? Someone bent on committing mass murder may turn to knives, hatchets, chainsaws or machetes. So, we outlaw those. The next person to commit a heinous crime may use a bat, poison, poison gas or a semi-tractor. And the one after that may use a car, a pen or pencil, a rock, his hands . . . . . . so when do we blame the PERSON and NOT the inanimate weapon!???
The fact remains that until the left understands that murdering humans by ANY means including their favorite method, abortion, human life will be valueless and more copycats will come out to exercise their demented mass murder of innocent people.
All of that said, it occurs to me that the gun-grabbers are from the leftist school of complete control. What that means is that if 1 person commits a gun crime then, under the leftist theory of the “collective” and “groupthink”, they believe that ALL gun owners will commit mass murder unless they eliminate guns (good luck with that!). So, the calls for more gun control by the left after these incidents is twofold - eliminate the “balance of power” the Founding Fathers so carefully wove into the Constitution and gain total control over the people.
Another part that affects all of this is the fact that laws, whether gun laws, robbery laws, or whatever, are written solely to affect law-abiding citizens. People who commit crimes are called “outlaws” and criminals because they DON’T adhere to the laws created to control or stop their illegal activities.
So, should the left create additional gun control laws, will it prevent the next gun-related crime? Of course not. Laws only affect those of us who obey them. Those who disregard the law won’t be stopped from committing whatever crime they want to commit.
As a final note, Adam Lanza did not own the guns he used to murder all of the people at Sandy Hook Elementary. They were his mother’s guns and they were all legally purchased and registered. Which begs the question, what will any NEW gun control laws accomplish?
Thanks for that insight. God, what a mess.
God Bless Bob Costas. homebrewed"theology".com, current liberal dimwit.
God bless him, for confirming what people who love liberty have known about "progressives" all along: they're primarily emoters incapable of clear thought who'd love to do away with the Constitution ("a charter of negative liberties") in general and the Bill of Rights in particular.
Speaking from the -- (let us hope) soon to once again be vacant -- Keith Olbermann Chair for Progressive Lunacy on Sunday Night Football, Costas echoed the moronic sentiments of some other raving whackjob at FoxSports.com about needing to do away with fundamental liberties. His name is unimportant. His kind are a dime a dozen in sports "newsrooms." (Alright. Alright! In keeping with my strict policy that douchebags of every stripe should be held up for ridicule, his name is Jason Whitlock.)
I have a modest proposal for those of you who think repealing some parts of the Bill of Rights you don't believe us Untermenschen should enjoy -- naturally from within the trusty redoubts of your gated communities and behind the privileged pistols of your own armed security -- is a Great Idea. If you really want to reduce gun violence and gun-related homicides, the 2nd Amendment is the wrong place to start. The low hanging fruit is elsewhere, my friend.
Start instead, with the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Recidivism rates among violent criminals in most states is over 90%, and over half of the people who will be convicted of homicides this year are accessories to, or perpetrators of, a least one previous homicide. Why do we need a trial by jury for people like that? Let's just lock them up.
The right not to incriminate yourself? Dude ... Seriously? Judges, DA's, cops, juvenile authorities and everyone who deals in law enforcement will tell you that _EVERYONE_ is guilty. Everyone. We aren't a rich country any more; we're actually worse off as a function of GDP/debt ratio than Greece. So why are we still pussyfooting around with evidentiary rules and expensive public defenders? Take these people down to the basement and work them over under a sweat-lamp with a rubber hose for a few hours just like in the good old days. Plea bargaining is best conducted with the soon-to-be defendant on his knees.
Assistance of Counsel? Scumbags. You know it. I know it. Everybody -- even _THEY_ know it. Warrants? Probable Cause? Do you know how many criminals go free on these technicalities every year? Assume that the act of just being an American is implied consent for invasive searches of everything including your body cavities. The TSA does.
"OK," you say, "this sounds pretty stupid, but the stats are the stats. So I guess I could go along with this if it was only the criminals we were depriving of their Constitutional Rights. But it wouldn't be. It would be law abiding citizens."
What are you? A jerk?
This argument certainly doesn't pass muster with the gun-grabbers, as far as they're concerned, law abiding citizens have no more right to the 2nd Amendment than criminals do. So why should they have a right to the 4th, or the 5th, or the 6th Amendment, either? If we're going to put an end to gun violence at the expense of the Constitution, everybody is going to have to give up something.
And hey, putting Shakespeare's plan concerning Professional Advocates in place would even become a practical reality. Who knows where it might end...?
[The Bill of Rights: It's not just one Amendment, jackasses.]
Finding G*d’s word in beer makes the errors inherent in “beer glasses” but the author of this gun grabber screed makes the stretch anyway. And - once again, “The monkey’s reach exceeds his grasp.”
A Constitutional Amendment shouldn't be restricted to specific fads, such as nuclear or particle beam weapons that can come and go.
I've almost got the baryon number inverter working in my basement, and when I do: PAIR PRODUCTION BABY!
You want my anti-matter pistols? Molon Labe.
I could’ve killed all those kids and the adults with $75 worth of stuff from my local hardware store. And no guns.
This will make them mad...say with a straight face that if we could just somehow keep liberals from owning or possessing guns, we could make the country safer.
Then tell them that since liberals are prone to emotional decision making, they really aren’t fit to own or come into contact with firearms.
Then you can prove your statement by asking them to show any of the 33 shooters since columbine that would have voted for George Bush.
LoL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.