• In case most of you have not noticed, I made changes to the donation amounts as well as the durations for all of the paid membership levels. Things are winding down here, and this seems to be the most prudent way to deal with the "end of life" period of this site.

    Contributor level members - $10 per 30 days
    Sponsors - Eliminated
    Benefactor level members - $25 per 30 days
    Endowment level members - $50 per 30 days

    Account Upgrades Page
  • Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

Obama and the attempt to destroy the Second Amendment

Probably a bit of both Sammy. The system has it's flaws, but the bigger problem is the misinterpretation these days of whats been written by our founding fathers.
 
Cat_72 said:
I don't know about the "Childrens Defense Fund" stats, but I've seen very clearly how many of the CDC's stats are skewed. Actually, oftentimes if you read the entire release that the stats are published in, it will tell you how and why they are inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Exactly! And how many of those deaths can be attributed to the "kid" being involved in illegal activities by which he or she VOLUNTARILY put themselves in a risky environment? Yes, 13 and 15 year olds (and up) ARE involved in criminal activities. Peddling drugs and breaking and entering may very well get them shot now and again.
 
It is so very simple to get a gun on the black market. If you dont know routes you COULD get one, you either live in a bubble, or you do not speak to many people. Or you live in more isolation than myself.

Is that something im proud to know? Absolutely not. In fact, it was a mistaken discoverey, and one i was highly highly uncomfortable with. It was chilling to find out how close to home some of that stuff really is. Even if its not directly in your life, or even something that you could even begin to think existed. I know i didnt think it so.

Punishing the good and responsible is NOT the way to stop this kind of stuff, because more often than not, those law abiding citizens are NOT causing the problems.
 
Well, here's a perspective that perhaps this issue needs to be viewed from.

Before there were all the gun laws now on the books, there really wasn't any black market for guns in the USA. If you could afford a gun, you could buy one basically anywhere at all. So right off hand, would you say that society was more or less violent then than it is now?
 
WebSlave said:
Well, here's a perspective that perhaps this issue needs to be viewed from.

Before there were all the gun laws now on the books, there really wasn't any black market for guns in the USA. If you could afford a gun, you could buy one basically anywhere at all. So right off hand, would you say that society was more or less violent then than it is now?
Click to expand...

I think that stuff has to do with the sheer number of people now than there were way back when.

I think there was much more discipline then too, and a much stronger sense of family than there is today. There were responsibilites, and everyone knew you, and your family, and more than likely your mothers best friend was like a mother to yourself, so you didnt mess up or shed smack ya too, and you were taught that respect from a young age.

People get all whiny about people "Beating their kids" and honestly... a spanking, or chasing a kid around with a belt.... i dont think its all abuse as some cry out. It teaches them to respect authority. ( heck i know it worked for me! i was a demon child! ) There are levels, of course. But i think physical dicipline is necessary sometimes.
 
Mooing Tricycle said:
I think that stuff has to do with the sheer number of people now than there were way back when.

I think there was much more discipline then too, and a much stronger sense of family than there is today. There were responsibilites, and everyone knew you, and your family, and more than likely your mothers best friend was like a mother to yourself, so you didnt mess up or shed smack ya too, and you were taught that respect from a young age.

People get all whiny about people "Beating their kids" and honestly... a spanking, or chasing a kid around with a belt.... i dont think its all abuse as some cry out. It teaches them to respect authority. ( heck i know it worked for me! i was a demon child! ) There are levels, of course. But i think physical dicipline is necessary sometimes.
Click to expand...

:iagree: 110%....Alicia you a Demon Child??? NO WAY!!!! :dgrin:
 
And sorry Kelli, but so what if 50% of high school males could get a gun if they wanted to? I'm pretty sure at least 90% of the kids in my son's class could get a gun at any time they wanted to, my son goes out hunting with many of them. Difference is, it's not a "big deal" for them, as they were raised with them and have the tools they need to know how to use them properly. It's the kids whose parents have hidden them away that scare me.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree that if you are going to keep guns in your home you should educate your children about gun safety. That doesn't mean that children should have easy access to them though. For instance, if you have a curious baby/toddler that is beginning to explore and open up kitchen cabinets you make sure the cabinets are locked or you remove anything from the cabinets that could be dangerous to the child. I feel the same way about guns and kids, and that includes high school age males.

I think that if a person with children living with them is going to have firearms in the home the most important things they should do are: keep the guns locked up, teach the kids that guns are dangerous and can kill people, and teach the children how to act safely around a gun. I keep my guns locked up and will continue to do so until I have no more children living in the home.
 
So, where did those "statistics" come from? Sounds like something directly from Handgun Control, Inc. Where "kids" are anywhere in age up to 23 years old......
Click to expand...

The stats actually came from the National Education Association (I should have credited them).

http://www.neahin.org/about/index.html

Exactly! And how many of those deaths can be attributed to the "kid" being involved in illegal activities by which he or she VOLUNTARILY put themselves in a risky environment? Yes, 13 and 15 year olds (and up) ARE involved in criminal activities. Peddling drugs and breaking and entering may very well get them shot now and again.
Click to expand...

I tried to find some stats on that but haven't been able to yet. I am curious to find out what percentage of child deaths by firearm are accidental, suicide, happen during them being involved in a criminal act etc.
 
Not that this isn't an important issue, but I'm not entirely convinced that WHOEVER gets elected is even going to have time, or the burning desire, to deal with gun control? It hasn't even really been brought up during the campaigning, and with all of the other GINORMOUS issues that this country is facing, I really hope to heavens that they are focused on things like the economy, the deficit, our health care system, social security, our overseas military involvement, etc...........before either of them focuses on this issue.
 
dprince said:
Not that this isn't an important issue, but I'm not entirely convinced that WHOEVER gets elected is even going to have time, or the burning desire, to deal with gun control? It hasn't even really been brought up during the campaigning, and with all of the other GINORMOUS issues that this country is facing, I really hope to heavens that they are focused on things like the economy, the deficit, our health care system, social security, our overseas military involvement, etc...........before either of them focuses on this issue.
Click to expand...

You aren't kidding they aren't going to have time to focus on gun control. Whichever one gets elected is inheriting a huge mess.:(
 
And IF whoever happens to get elected finds that whatever steps NEEDING to be taken (or even if they find that no matter what they do, the crap is going to REALLY hit the fan anyway) will pretty much put the American public in a highly aggravated and agitated state of mind, don't you think they may very well think that trying to take guns AWAY from the population to keep them from actually USING them against the bozos in that half square area of Maryland that got us into this mess, might be wise to try to save their own skins?

There is a REAL good chance that there is no way out of the hole we have all been pushed into without some VERY VERY painful changes in our lifestyles. Suppose you find out that your life savings is now worthless? That you now have to work for nearly nothing because taxes take nearly all of it away? The government has been taking way too many free lunches for way to long and just putting the bill on a tab that they thought they would never have to pay while THEY were still in office.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but quite frankly, my interpretation of ANY major move by the government to disarm the public will be that things are REALLY REALLY going to get bad for ALL of us REAL soon. I would hope that everyone who really enjoys what is left of our freedoms and wants to keep them, would fight such a move tooth and nail...
 
I'm not so jaded that I think they won't have time. Like Rich said, tooth and nail, man. Tooth and nail. Same goes for my birds they're always trying to sneak in a ban on, and my snakes.
 
KelliH said:
These people need to teach their children respect, but instead they let them run the house and run the streets even as young as seven years old.
Click to expand...
What people are you referring to, Varnyard?
Click to expand...
Now, now. Here is the whole paragraph.
Lock up the thugs and throw away the key. They let them run the streets and let them out of jail time after time, they teach the children to do the same time after time, that has nothing all to do with guns, but in fact the people behind them. These people need to teach their children respect, but instead they let them run the house and run the streets even as young as seven years old.
Click to expand...

Clearly he was making a statement about thugs, Criminals. Taking one line out of paragraph about criminals and highlighting "these people" seems like a little race baiting to me. You think someone could state their opinion on crime and firearms without this happening.
 
Most politicians words carry little weight. I look at the voting record.

Obama's voting record in the Illinois senate leaves no doubt. He is absolutely for banning all firearms for all citizens.
 
dprince said:
Not that this isn't an important issue, but I'm not entirely convinced that WHOEVER gets elected is even going to have time, or the burning desire, to deal with gun control? It hasn't even really been brought up during the campaigning, and with all of the other GINORMOUS issues that this country is facing, I really hope to heavens that they are focused on things like the economy, the deficit, our health care system, social security, our overseas military involvement, etc...........before either of them focuses on this issue.
Click to expand...

KelliH said:
You aren't kidding they aren't going to have time to focus on gun control. Whichever one gets elected is inheriting a huge mess.:(
Click to expand...

I think things change at two points. When issues become important to most and when they become the least important.

I have no doubt at some point enough people will not care enough about the issue. A lot may even ask for it and welcome it. Heck, one day the majority of those that welcome it might have the power and the will to "change" it. The White House, Congress, Supreme Court, people not focusing on or caring enough about this particular issue. Oh, wait a minute...
 
Dennis Hultman said:
Most politicians words carry little weight. I look at the voting record.

Obama's voting record in the Illinois senate leaves no doubt. He is absolutely for banning all firearms for all citizens.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He has repeatedly fought for firearm BANNING, not control. His agenda has been made clear for years. Not that McCain hasn't been in on some of that himself.

"Cold dead fingers"
 
Dennis Hultman said:

I have no doubt at some point enough people will not care enough about the issue. A lot may even ask for it and welcome it. Heck, one day the majority of those that welcome it might have the power and the will to "change" it. The White House, Congress, Supreme Court, people not focusing on or caring enough about this particular issue.
Click to expand...

The time is well on it's way, sadly enough. I believe that the last stats I looked at on gun ownership said it was around 39% of Americans. Down a great deal from when we were young.
And perhaps that is the way it should be in all aspects. The next generation is now shaping their world as we shaped ours for our middle ages.
I may not be comfortable with what our next generation finds acceptable or unacceptable but I/we are on the down hill slide and the world is soon to be theirs with our beliefs as only vague guidelines just as our world is only a scant reflection of the world set down by the founders of our nation.
 
Dennis Hultman said:

I think things change at two points. When issues become important to most and when they become the least important.

I have no doubt at some point enough people will not care enough about the issue. A lot may even ask for it and welcome it. Heck, one day the majority of those that welcome it might have the power and the will to "change" it. The White House, Congress, Supreme Court, people not focusing on or caring enough about this particular issue. Oh, wait a minute...
Click to expand...

While you may be right about the "points of change" (makes perfect sense to me), I honestly CAN'T imagine that enough people won't care about this issue. Maybe I'm naive, but geez, just reading this thread, and knowing a wide variety of people, I highly doubt that most people would become apathetic to something that is so clearly defined in the Constitution. While folks may disagree on the extent of what "the right to bear arms" means, no one denies it's there. If the government tried to ban all guns, there would anarchy, plain and simple. It's political suicide for ANY politician to want to ban ALL weapons, because even most people I know that are either for gun control, or not opposed to it, believe in the right to HAVE guns, even if they don't.

I have seen Obama's voting record on this issue, and while it's clear that he is for gun control, I didn't see anywhere that he was for banning all guns (if anyone can guide me there, that'd be great. :) ) John McCain's record is definitely less gun control, but he also hasn't always voted anti-gun control, either.

And yes, I am a gun owner. ;)
 
It is interesting to note that our forefathers, meaning the people who created this country through the US Constitution, were FULLY aware of the danger of the "tyranny of the majority". Which is why this county was created NOT as a Democracy, but as a Constitutional Republic. Meaning that a simple majority CANNOT override the dictates listed within the Constitution that are the basis of all our laws. It takes a SUPER majority to create an amendment to negate the primary laws of this country.

And yes, I believe that if the majority of the gun laws are put to a TRUE test of Constitutional compliance by a completely unbiased and fair supreme court, they WILL be found to be unconstitutional. And although perhaps you and I may not agree with such a strict interpretation, it is what it is, nonetheless. Personally, I would rather not see ex-felons being able to obtain guns, nor someone with the financial backing being able to buy a nuclear weapon. But with a STRICT reading and understanding of what the Second Amendment states, neither of these can LEGALLY be restricted. Certainly there were criminals when the Second Amendment was created, which most certainly our forefathers MUST have considered them in their ponderings. And as well, canon and warships, as well as explosives were readily available and certainly used to wrest control of this country from England. Yet there was no mention of limiting the Second Amendment to applying to only lesser types of weaponry. Quite frankly, with the purpose of the Second Amendment being to protect this country from ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic (with domestic likely meaning a government that has gone bad), it just would not make sense for them to put any restriction on the types of weapons allowed the citizenry in the light of the government being allowed the most powerful of weapons, and the citizens themselves DENIED such access.

They KNEW there was a possibility that the government they created may very well become the tyranny they had just escaped and feared might rise again because of what they created. Yes, they put in a lot of safeguards, but they could not be psychic enough to cover every eventuality. The Bill of Rights with the first 10 Amendments was put in place EXACTLY because many representatives of the states felt that the Constitution itself didn't do ENOUGH to protect the people from this new government being created. So how anyone can interpret the Second Amendment as being flexible enough to say that the people cannot have weapons that are available to the government completely baffles me. The Second Amendment was put there precisely to keep that from happening.
 
I think the forefathers didn't HAVE to worry as much about criminals. When someone did attack another and kill them, it was quickly determined whether it was murder or not, and taken care of. There was not the numerous excuses of "He wasn't loved enough as a baby" and "He's just a gang member, he's young..."
The more violence someone gets away with, the more violent they will become. Now we have people who go on long years of shooting up neighborhoods, and attacking people to steal... and they end up on the streets again.
I think people back then were also not such sheep to allow such behavior either. Now people wring their hands and say "Well.. we can't do anything to prevent it" while then it was more likely that the culprit would end up beaten bloody the first time.
Just my opinion.
 
Back
Top