Obama and the attempt to destroy the Second Amendment

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Hmm... Stonings were generally TO DEATH, for the person being stoned weren't they?


Certainly that would qualify for "killing", now wouldn't it?

No one says we HAVE to stone them until death. There is a happy medium in there somewhere, I am sure, that will make people not want to be repeat offenders and yet not kill them.

Can we just put them in stocks on a street corner and let people throw rotten tomatoes at them all day long????

Let's get real, folks. The second amendment was meant to prevent government tyranny. A good thing. Do you really think your small arsenal of .308's and 9mm sidearms poses a threat to to the US government?

It has become a mute point.

Originally Posted by Bill Stonegate

Let's get real, folks. The second amendment was meant to prevent government tyranny. A good thing. Do you really think your small arsenal of .308's and 9mm sidearms poses a threat to to the US government?

It has become a mute point.

Which is EXACTLY why the government restrictions on the TYPES of arms the citizens can own MUST be unconstitutional. It nullifies the real reason FOR the Second Amendment via government infringement.

Originally Posted by Bill Stonegate

Let's get real, folks. The second amendment was meant to prevent government tyranny. A good thing. Do you really think your small arsenal of .308's and 9mm sidearms poses a threat to to the US government?

It has become a mute point.

PS, sorry for quoting myself, but don't try breaking into my house.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Which is EXACTLY why the government restrictions on the TYPES of arms the citizens can own MUST be unconstitutional. It nullifies the real reason FOR the Second Amendment via government infringement.

I have to agree to agree on that. But we live in a different time now. Should anyone be allowed to own rocket propelled grenades?

You bet your ass. That was the infinite wisdom of the founding fathers.

That wisdom might be lost be lost on some.

Originally Posted by shrap

I could not agree more Cat. If you are going to have a firearm in your home you need to educate your children about the use of them. Ignorance is what gets children killed with guns. I have been taking my daughter shooting since she was 7 or 8 years old.

Now at 13 she knows how to shoot, load, unload, check to see if a round is chambered, safety features, etc, etc of every gun in our house. We shoot together 2 or 3 times a year. I would get her to shoot more but she has no desire to go out and shoot. The guns in my house are no different to her than the lawn mower or weed eater..... and I can barely get her to use those twice a year either.

I firmly believe that the reason she has no interest in them is because first, she was educated and taught to use them. She has all the hands on time with them that she wants. Second is because I didnt make the gun some mythical thing that is never to be touched or talked about. Kinda like dad's Playboys when I was 10 years old. They were taboo, which made them all that more attractive to an inquisitive kid.

All but one of my guns are in a safe. The one is usually within 10 feet of me. My daughter has complete access to that one gun but has absolutely no desire to touch it because she KNOWS what it is and she KNOWS what it does. There is no mystery for her to figure out.

Well, of course you are right, Sammy. The problem is, not everybody has such a a responsible parent.

Originally Posted by Bill Stonegate

Well, of course you are right, Sammy. The problem is, not everybody has such a a responsible parent.

Just doing what my dad and grandpa did with me growing up.

Hell, it was only 150 years ago that 8-10 year old kids were often responsible for going out and hunting small game on a regular basis to help feed the family.

Originally Posted by shrap

Just doing what my dad and grandpa did with me growing up.

Hell, it was only 150 years ago that 8-10 year old kids were often responsible for going out and hunting small game on a regular basis to help feed the family.

Well, that is true. But this is not 150 years ago. This is now. I think the real question is, "Do we only honor the Constitution when it is convenient?"

Here Israeli analyst provides a detailed comparison of Obama to Michael Jackson: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/michae...-president.htm