Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 219

5861 posts

Flag Post

Yet we are alone at the top, or were. Obama is dragging us down, but we will be #1 again after November. What country are you from?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Yet we are alone at the top, or were.

Not really, considering there are things that we’re not the best at anymore (with or without Obama) or were to begin with.

Besides, why would it be a good idea to be #1 at everything?

Obama is dragging us down, but we will be #1 again after November.

inb4obamagetsreelected

What country are you from?

I honestly don’t know if I could call this xenophobia, or ask you why you care so much.

 
Flag Post

Well, I must agree we are not the best at everything anymore, but we could be. It is in our rebellious blood.

I just like to know what countries people are from. It is interesting to know. You might say I am traveling through my puter. :)

 
Flag Post

To answer your question, I’m a Spaniard living in New Zealand.

 
Flag Post

Cool! New Zealand is beautiful from what I hear and I spent some time and money getting a straight razor from Spain. I believe it was called a Dorko. Sharpest razor you could ever imagine. Maybe sharper than a scalpel. I come up with that slogan “scary sharp” and that razor was scary sharp. I have shaved with one.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Well, I must agree we are not the best at everything anymore, but we could be. It is in our rebellious blood.

No we can’t and we never were, now go read a history book.

 
Flag Post

I am reading a history book. It’s called, “James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights’” I thought it would be dry but it’s really quite interesting. Do you know why the Bill of Rights were put in the Constitution as amendments? Because they weren’t in the original Constitution and they couldn’t get the Constitution ratified without them. Rather than rewrite the entire document, they just made amendments. Originally there were 13 rights and they were trimmed down. If you get a chance, read the book.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I am reading a history book. It’s called, “James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights’” I thought it would be dry but it’s really quite interesting. Do you know why the Bill of Rights were put in the Constitution as amendments?

Yes, the Anti-federalists were pissy about there being no Bill of Rights because then the “strong national government might take away the human rights won in the Revolution;” However, the reason that the Constitutional Convention didn’t include it was because they decided it was unneccessary, and because the Constitution didn’t give the government power to violate the people’s rights.

Because they weren’t in the original Constitution and they couldn’t get the Constitution ratified without them.

The Articles were a bitch, weren’t they?

If you get a chance, read the book.

I am. That tends to happen when you study American history and Government.

Now how does this relate to the U.S being teh bestest cuntry evar?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

You all think Americans will want to have more gun control so we can be part of the world, yet all indications say no.

I haven’t a clue what THAT means…..a part of the world. Maybe this is why jake-o is sooooo “diminished in respect” on the forum,,,,,he communicates poorly (yeah, so do I, lol).

Even with the facts right in front of you, you argue that they don’t know what they are talking about or that they don’t know what is good for them.

Even w/ certain facts right before jake-o, he yet argues againt even the most rational of points. As far as not knowing what is good for them goes,,,there are a whoooole lot of American voters//supporters of specific personal agendas that end up voting aginst their own interests on the big picture…esp. that of their finances (hint: Republican concept of busting unions and doing anything they can to reduce incomes of the middle class.)

Don’t think all Americans are stupid…

jake-o should just stop w/ the “hyperbolizing”. Obviously NOT ALL Americans are stooopid….and many just aren’t really even stupid (whatever THAT idiotic subjective term is supposed to mean.

… and don’t think all Americans want to stoop to the input from people who have no business arguing we should do this or that.

Hoooboy,,, here he is, AGAIN, spewing hyberbole: ALL Americans….good grief. I fail to see any poster (reasonable, sane ones wanting Americans to stoop to their input. jake-o needs to understandd that a huge part of maturity is being able to accept criticism….both personal & of their nation.
As for the first link below:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/6/After-shootings-Americans-reject-gun-control/”;
THIS from it: “Despite media hysteria, however, the national mood shifted against new federal restrictions. According to Pew, 72% of Republicans, 55% of independents and 27% of Democrats feel protecting gun ownership trumps “controlling guns” doesn’t really prove his point (seriously: whatever it is). First, it doesn’t give numbers BEFORE this “shit” (ooops, typo…should read: SHIFT). And, I’m just guessing here, BUT, I’d say the demographics there are pretty much representative of how Americans feel about gun CONTROL versus the obvious BANNING of guns. I guess jake-o STILL DOESN’T UNERDER STAND the difference…..other than to offer the “slippery slope assurity” of how things turn out.

As for this link:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html


Could the author have HIS OWNBIAS”?
A recomendation from Sean Hannity just might indicate this:
Praise for The Bias against Guns
“If you want the truth the anti-gunners don’t want you to know… you need a copy of The Bias Against Guns.” —Sean Hannity, of Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes .

The fact that what the author presents as bias from liberals just might not be truly indicative of exactly what the OBJECTIONS those “liberals” are presenting….at least in whole. Hell, even jake-o’s links are fully of hyperbole…..lol

Another “testimonial”:
“As a gun-toting rock ‘n’ roll star all my life, I have lived firsthand the outrageous media and Hollywood bias against good guys with guns forever. I laugh in their face. John Lott is my academic hero.” —Ted Nugent, recording artist and author of Kill It & Grill It and Gods, Guns, & Rock ‘n’ Roll"
Yeah, we know just how “sane” this guy is.
Of late, he has been the butt of a lot of jokes.

 
Flag Post

The right to own a gun to defend yourself should be a universal right.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by QuabbinHiker:

The right to own a gun to defend yourself should be a universal right.

Why?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by QuabbinHiker:

The right to own a gun to defend yourself should be a universal right.

In Norway there is little to no crime. There are also hardly any guns available for the people. As there are no guns (in general), there’s much less crime. Do you see the correlation here, which the American constitution fails to observe since it’s an 18th century document?
 
Flag Post

Of course there’s no gun crime if there is no guns. You won’t see a medieval government document listing out gun deaths or whatever.
Guns may be scarce in Norway, but there’s millions in the United States. It’d be ridiculous and unrealistic to even attempt to lower the amount of firearms in here even by half. And since criminals already have guns, you wouldn’t be able to take them away from them.
In a way it’s kinda like a virus. One that, depending on what you do with it, can be beign or malevolent. After you(the country) get exposed to the virus(firearms), it’ll be in you and stay in you for the rest of your life, attempts to completely eradicate it from all of your body(still the country) will inevitably fail.
Also, switzerland.
The constitution says there is a right to bear arms, not a right to kill innocents.

 
Flag Post

However, like a virus there are things you can do to limit the negative effects. Such as mandate training for firearms. Make it part of the school system. That way even if everyone has guns, everyone knows how to use them most effectively to minimise collateral damage, and to analyse and defuse the situation before firearms are necessary.

In Switzerland they are allowed guns, yes, but they are not allowed ammunition. That is kept centrally and distributed by local authorities in a time of crisis.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Retry:


In a way it’s kinda like a virus. One that, depending on what you do with it, can be beign or malevolent. After you(the country) get exposed to the virus(firearms), it’ll be in you and stay in you for the rest of your life, attempts to completely eradicate it from all of your body(still the country) will inevitably fail.

I agree. They are already so prominently out there, there’s no way to rescind it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I am reading a history book. It’s called, “James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights’” I thought it would be dry but it’s really quite interesting. Do you know why the Bill of Rights were put in the Constitution as amendments?

Yes, the Anti-federalists were pissy about there being no Bill of Rights because then the “strong national government might take away the human rights won in the Revolution;” However, the reason that the Constitutional Convention didn’t include it was because they decided it was unneccessary, and because the Constitution didn’t give the government power to violate the people’s rights.

Because they weren’t in the original Constitution and they couldn’t get the Constitution ratified without them.

The Articles were a bitch, weren’t they?

If you get a chance, read the book.

I am. That tends to happen when you study American history and Government.

Now how does this relate to the U.S being teh bestest cuntry evar?

There was a little more to it than the anti-federalists just being pissy. They felt the federalists were giving too much power to the government and had left the people open for government tyranny. They felt without the statement of our rights, we would be giving up what our patriots had fought for. Virginia (any state) would have been left out of the new government if they didn’t ratify it, because ratification by the states was changed from a unanimous vote to only 9 states. Virginia almost stepped back until the Bill of Rights were included. There were two sides to the debate and it didn’t mean one side was pissy, just of a different view.

Yes, the Articles were, but I think they were necessary.

That’s right, you are still in school. My post had nothing to do with America being the best at anything. I posted that to show what we went through to get those rights and why we won’t give them up…any of them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

There was a little more to it than the anti-federalists just being pissy. They felt the federalists were giving too much power to the government and had left the people open for government tyranny. They felt without the statement of our rights, we would be giving up what our patriots had fought for.

Almost word for word what my book says. Weird.

Virginia (any state) would have been left out of the new government if they didn’t ratify it, because ratification by the states was changed from a unanimous vote to only 9 states.

Thankfully, that didn’t require a unanimous vote.

There were two sides to the debate and it didn’t mean one side was pissy, just of a different view.

No shit?

Yes, the Articles were, but I think they were necessary.

At the time, maybe, but they were still very much broken.

That’s right, you are still in school.

Or I could just be studying American Government to persue a job in politics or another legal buisness, or possibly to just study American Government, there are many more possiblities.

My post had nothing to do with America being the best at anything.

Then do you see my confusion when you reply to one of my post about that?

I posted that to show what we went through to get those rights and why we won’t give them up…any of them.

And I’m… Not going to guess who this “we” is anymore.

And one thing you may have not noticed with your borderline facsim, but do remember that those rights were ones fought for during(and over, sorta) the Revolutionary War, which was about a century and a half ago? And do you remember the Third amendment, the one about the quartering of troops, and how it was a good idea at the time, but now it’s kinda silly? Yeah, well my point here is that The Bill of Rights was founded on ideas of those that are long since dead, and said ideas were also focused on things that they were unhappy about when they were dependent on Britian, and some are now either less applicable, or just out of touch with modern society. Now don’t get me wrong, there are more amendments that are still very applicable now, however people fought to be able to freely wield bayonets to defend themselves from things that they tend not to face anymore, and people also fought so British troops couldn’t just start leeching off of their resources in their homes.

Now hopefully there’s a point in that jumbled wall of text.

 
Flag Post

Word for word? Wow, I’m good. :)

I must agree, if it required a unanimous vote, we may not have our founding document.

It took a bit to get then fixed like they needed to be, but they turned out pretty good by the time they were adopted.

Good, I hope you succeed in whatever endeavors you pursue.

Yes, I can see your confusion. :)

We would be the American people in this case. We are part of this group you know. I’m not a facetious. I’m not sure I understand where you are going with the third amendment. It is still not ok to quarter troops in our homes. Are you trying to say we don’t need our Bill of Rights? I beg to differ, we need them more today than we ever have. The idea is to keep our country free from tyranny.

If we were to give up any one of our rights, government would trample all of them. I am really serious about this. We would have long ago succumbed to our government without our rights. If for instance, we didn’t have the 2nd amendment and we decided to just do away with it, the sign to our government would be that the Bill of Rights would be open to dissection. We would loose all of them before we knew what happened.

I have heard, and seen legislation, our government has proposed to limit free speech. Remember when the government put limits on elections and we couldn’t say anything derogatory about an incumbent 30 days before an election? Just last year they tried to shut up conservative talk radio with a piece of legislation to control radio. We may be talking about the 2nd amendment here, but all of our rights have…and will continue to come under fire from our government.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

If we were to give up any one of our rights, government would trample all of them.

Hyperbole-powered slippery-slope argument much?

Slippery I am really serious about this. We would have long ago succumbed to our government without our rights. If for instance, we didn’t have the 2nd amendment and we decided to just do away with it, the sign to our government would be that the Bill of Rights would be open to dissection.

Of course it’s open to dissection. It should be a living document, not a dead one.

We would loose all of them before we knew what happened.

No Jhco, just because the rights are looked at critically in context of modern times, does not mean the ‘government’ will pour gasoline over the originals and toss in a match. As usual, you are using hyperbole to rediculous extremes.

but all of our rights have…and will continue to come under fire from our government.

Good.

They will come under fire from the people as well. We need to decide what is relevant to us today, and what is no-longer relevant to anyone. If it makes absolutely no sense in a modern context, remove it. Add in more rights that do make sense. Continually question and challenge old laws.

 
Flag Post

Think about it Vika. What has our government done since the 30-40s? They have reached for more and more power through the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. I can remember things (freedoms) we did when I was young that is against some law now. Every generation we lose part of our freedoms. Unless we stop it soon, we won’t be the America we have been.

It is not a document to be changed just for the hell of it. What are you going to do, make a constitutional amendment to legalize drugs? Maybe we should do away with the Bill of Rights and just become disciples of Uncle Sam. NO! It is not what you want it to be and if it comes down to it, I’m willing to forfeit my life to protect that document. I’m serious about that.

The rights are as valid to day as they were 250 years ago. If our government thought they could get away with it they would burn our constitution. I don’t’ understand why you would be so willing to give up all of our rights?

Have you even read the constitution? Do you realize how many soldiers who have given their all to protect our country and that constitution you show disgust for? There is a difference between challenging old laws and destroying the basis of our nation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Think about it Vika. What has our government done since the 30-40s?

Government stuff?

They have reached for more and more power through the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.

It doesn’t really help when the consevative are also trying to restrict freedoms.

I can remember things (freedoms) we did when I was young that is against some law now.

Like drinking booze before you’re 21?

Every generation we lose part of our freedoms.

And gained some.

Unless we stop it soon, we won’t be the America we have been.

Yeah, I know you really don’t like change, but that can actually be a good thing.

It is not a document to be changed just for the hell of it.

Pretty sure people here aren’t suggesting that.

What are you going to do, make a constitutional amendment to legalize drugs?

Which ones? (Though technically, there are plenty of drugs already legalized.)

Maybe we should do away with the Bill of Rights and just become disciples of Uncle Sam.

How overly sensationalist of you.

NO! It is not what you want it to be and if it comes down to it, I’m willing to forfeit my life to protect that document.

Except when it disagrees with you, then you burn that part.

I’m serious about that.

I’m sure you are; you’ve been shown to be bat-shit insane before.

The rights are as valid to day as they were 250 years ago.

What about lack thereof?

If our government thought they could get away with it they would burn our constitution.

I’m going to call bull shit on that.

I don’t’ understand why you would be so willing to give up all of our rights?

No-one’s saying that, you just forgot to take your pills again.

Have you even read the constitution?

Yes, why do you think she hasn’t? Because she’s critisizing parts of it?

Do you realize how many soldiers who have given their all to protect our country and that constitution you show disgust for?

Alright, can I lable this under xenophobia, denial, willful ignorance, etc? Any of that?

There is a difference between challenging old laws and destroying the basis of our nation.

And there’s also a difference between definding it, and blindly supporting it because because.

 
Flag Post

Considering I’ve linked online copies of the constitution for people to perouse (when Jhco ‘forgot’ to link it, and quoted large blocks at him, you would think he’d twig that I’ve read the thing, but apparently not.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

However, like a virus there are things you can do to limit the negative effects. Such as mandate training for firearms. Make it part of the school system. That way even if everyone has guns, everyone knows how to use them most effectively to minimise collateral damage, and to analyse and defuse the situation before firearms are necessary.

In Switzerland they are allowed guns, yes, but they are not allowed ammunition. That is kept centrally and distributed by local authorities in a time of crisis.

I only said it was a virus that depending on how you used it could be positive or negative. Guns are generally not negative.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Retry:

I only said it was a virus that depending on how you used it could be positive or negative. Guns are generally not negative.

When used to non-destructive means, at least.

 
Flag Post

I read some of the comments on this thread and I feel like you folks are so scared of everything. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. It’s just like talking to people who are afraid of everything. It kind of reminds me of the old hippy days when we had all of the hippies running around speaking peace my brother, etc. Those were the days of free love and the peace sign and drugs…they were big on drugs back then.

Vika, when did you present large blocks of the constitution at me? It’s hell getting old and forgetting. :) I have a lot of respect for that document and the people who brought it to us. Most people on here have never read it and make their posts uniformed. I get a little short with some of the foreigners trying to argue it without knowing what it says or means, but I understand the hesitation on their part for taking the time to study it. Still, if they are going to argue for changes, they should know what they are arguing.

The Bill of Rights we ended up with were specific and were added to our founding document to insure we would always be protected. Our government, and some others who would like to see it gone, have tried to dismantle everything this country stands for.