• 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

Wolfy-hound said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with that at all. Matter of fact, it is my opinion that the "law" really was originally designed to be used when issues couldn't be resolved between two parties on their own. Nowadays, in some areas, the defense of a criminal attack can get the defender in a whole lot more trouble and financial loss then if he or she had just allowed the attack to happen passively. That is just plain flat out WRONG. And you can bet that the criminals know fully well about this sort of "protection" and take advantage of it. Heck, if I should ever decide to turn to a life of crime, mugging people for their wallet or purse, my choice of prime real estate to lurk in would be school grounds. The chances are VERY high that I would meet with NO armed resistance there, because anyone even carrying a gun would be reluctant to use it for fear of the legal repercussions. They would be much better off just handing over their money and going about their business.

The BEST place for armed criminal activity is where arms are not allowed. Heck, if you are inclined to commit a crime anyway, you aren't planning on getting caught, so having a gun isn't going to worry you too much.
 
I can't find anything specific to point you to on my claim of Obama wanting an outright ban. Maybe it's more a suspicion based on some of the comments coming from him over the years.

As far as the common argument about the 2nd amendment pertaining to "militia" only, that has been over ruled in several Supreme court rulings. One as recently as June of this year in a DC case of a cop trying to register his gun to keep at home...

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/27/nation/na-scotus27
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/

The PDF for the case.....

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


The 2nd amendment rights are an individual right, as ruled by the US Supreme court, and as far as "Militia" goes, it was ruled in a Texas Supreme court as far back as 1939 they, the us supreme court, defined militia as any man able to bear a arms in defense of our country in case of outside, or domestic attack, and they are expected to bring their own. Kinda hard to bring your own if they are banned.

Support the NRA people. They have the resources we'll need to keep our rights intact.
 
I think I made it quite clear, thugs, gang bangers, felons and pure trash regardless of race, color or age. It is not needed in our world, and so be it if they bite the bullet, chain, knife, bomb or anything else that kills. They want to play the game, then they can die doing it.

It is not the gun that kills, but the demented one behind it. Remove the gun, then they will stop, right? I think not, and it is silly to think the gun ban is an answer. It is just another way for the big boys to take control of the honest people. A gun ban will do one thing though, it will open your house to the crime.

And amen on the cold dead fingers!!!
 
Yeah.... I've never seen someone who claims to be adamantly anti-gun volunteer to put a sign on the front of their house proclaiming it to be a gun free zone. Nor the anti-gunners come up with some sort of arm band for them all to wear to people will recognize their stance (and the fact that they are certainly unarmed)...... :rolleyes:

Many don't even realize that even though they may abhor guns and the owners of guns, they are reaping the indirect benefits of concealed carry and gun ownership because the bad guys just don't know who is armed and who isn't. That's why burglaries and breaking and entering normally takes place in an unoccupied dwelling. The crooks REALLY REALLY don't want to come face to face with an armed occupant willing to stop them DEAD in their tracks. Even being armed themselves still puts them at a disadvantage on the home turf of the home owners. However, if they knew there was a 99 percent chance that ANY house they picked to rob would have defenseless occupants inside, then I suspect that when times are tough, being in that business might just be the thing for more people to do. Smash in the door, grab what you can while the panic stricken occupants frantically dial 911, then bolt back out the door with whatever you can carry. Easy pickings........
 
If you ban guns... then the only ones that will have them will be the criminals... cause they dont care if they break the law anyways. I can tell you right now... that I would end up being a criminal... cause I will not try to protect myself or my family with just a butter knife.

I mean look at the ban on the assult weapons... the only people it stopped from getting them are the honest folks.... the criminals still have them.
 
Not to take Rich's topic to far off, OK, just a little.

This election is really something. I'm just checking a lot of those videos on youtube. People are fired up.

You got the Obama Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

The NObama Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MADZnsIkpdQ

The Obama kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp5MbzAI&feature=related

The NObama kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e4PlOIrBxw

I'm not going to even touch all the anti-christ ads and NWO videos on both sides. But, WOW this election has fired up more people then any election I can recall. I think turnout is going to be record breaking.
 
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.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't clear to me, that's why I asked him for a clarification. The part about "them" letting "their children" run the streets as young as seven years old makes it pretty darn clear but hey, maybe he was referring to all the little white seven year olds running the streets. :rolleyes:

I was not "race baiting" whatever that means. I don't play games and set traps for people, if the meaning of that phrase is to set a trap. I'm a little surprised that you would infer something so negative towards me but frankly Dennis if that is how little you think of me and my character then I am glad you said something, for now I know your true feelings. Thanks.
 
KelliH said:
No, it wasn't clear to me, that's why I asked him for a clarification. The part about "them" letting "their children" run the streets as young as seven years old makes it pretty darn clear but hey, maybe he was referring to all the little white seven year olds running the streets. :rolleyes:

I was not "race baiting" whatever that means. I don't play games and set traps for people, if the meaning of that phrase is to set a trap. I'm a little surprised that you would infer something so negative towards me but frankly Dennis if that is how little you think of me and my character then I am glad you said something, for now I know your true feelings. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Dennis if that is how little you think of me and my character then I am glad you said something, for now I know your true feelings
Click to expand...
That's a little over the top, don't you think? I disagree with one post you made in four years and now you know my true feelings? No, I don't think anything bad about you Kelli.
I just disagree on that one post. I do think you were implying that he is a racist though. "What do you mean by "those people"." In the context of his paragraph I thought it unfair.
You just confirmed you thought he was racist again.
"but hey, maybe he was referring to all the little white seven year olds running the streets."

I really didn't think it was a fair assumption to make. What do you mean by "those people" is to often used against someone and taken out of context to make someone look bad. I thought it wrong. But, of course you could have read his paragraph differently. Just like I may have read yours differently.
 
Bill Stonegate said:
I just made a post here. For some as yet unknown reason, it vanished into the ether.
Click to expand...

:shrug01: I don't know. It has happened to me before. Don't close your browser and hit the back button until you get back to that page. I have retrieved a post this way. Copy it out of the post you were making in that window then close and reopen the thread and post again.
 
Dennis Hultman said:
:shrug01: I don't know. It's happen to me before. Don't close your browser and hit the back button until you get back to that page. I have retrieved a post this way. Copy it out of the post you were making in that window then close and reopen the thread and post again.
Click to expand...

Yep, tried. It's gone,
 
Dennis Hultman said:
:shrug01: I don't know. It has happened to me before. Don't close your browser and hit the back button until you get back to that page. I have retrieved a post this way. Copy it out of the post you were making in that window then close and reopen the thread and post again.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I'm not gonna write the whole damn thing again.
 
Doesn't show up in any of your recent posts in your User profile. Sure you didn't maybe hit the wrong button? :shrug01:

I know I've typed out some pretty wordy posts in the past, and Homer'd out and closed the browser instead of post reply. :ack2:
 
crotalusadamanteus said:
Doesn't show up in any of your recent posts in your User profile. Sure you didn't maybe hit the wrong button? :shrug01:

I know I've typed out some pretty wordy posts in the past, and Homer'd out and closed the browser instead of post reply. :ack2:
Click to expand...

Well, it's possible, but not very likely. Even on the occasions where I have clicked the wrong button, the post is easily recovered.
 
Only if you backed out, or actually posted. If you closed the window unposted, it wouldn't recover by backing up.

I think. I'm hardly a wiz with these things, but I make lots of mistakes. :D
 
My take on the issue:

http://thatvideosite.com/video/1804

But in all seriousness, while the 2nd amendment is an individual right, I believe the types of guns that can be owned by the individual are what should be limited. If you want a handgun to protect your family, or a rifle to hunt that's fine, but you don't need an automatic weapon in order to do so. I also believe gun ownership should be subject to some kind of intelligence test. Idiots should not be allowed to just randomly shoot their guns in their backyard. A moron shot my cat, because he was just shooting, for no reason, other than to feel like a big man apparently.
 
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...

Agreed! :iagree:

I find it funny that people get so up in arms (no pun intended) over GUNS, when much more important things are going on. I personally have no preference on the gun control issue. I just think that the economy, illegal aliens, and the war are much bigger topics than guns. I've seen a lot of Obama slamming on this thread, and I wonder where people get their news. Both candidates have problems (don't they all?) but McCain/Palin are much more volatile than Obama/Biden could ever be. Just my 0.02 cents.
 
Dreqqus said:
My take on the issue:

http://thatvideosite.com/video/1804

But in all seriousness, while the 2nd amendment is an individual right, I believe the types of guns that can be owned by the individual are what should be limited. If you want a handgun to protect your family, or a rifle to hunt that's fine, but you don't need an automatic weapon in order to do so. I also believe gun ownership should be subject to some kind of intelligence test. Idiots should not be allowed to just randomly shoot their guns in their backyard. A moron shot my cat, because he was just shooting, for no reason, other than to feel like a big man apparently.
Click to expand...

Also agreed :)
 
Back
Top