• 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

People who shoot animals deserve to get charged with it. If they hit a cat with a machete, would you advocate outlawing machetes? It's not the GUN.. it's the PERSON.
 
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...

So when did the second amendment have anything or absolute reference to common crime and hunting? You punish the individual such as the moron who shoot your cat, not the rights of the citizens.
 
The problem with most gun laws is that they incorporate a presumption of probable guilt on the owners of such firearms. The laws presume that someone having the capability of committing a crime with such devices WILL commit the crime unless the devices are kept from them.

As an aside, many people will use the comparison relating to the first amendment that people can't yell FIRE! in a crowded movie theater, even though the first amendment reserves the right to free speech to "the people". Well that's fine and dandy, and certainly someone SHOULD be prosecuted if they did such a thing. But the difference is that the gun laws are the equivalent of everyone coming into the movie theater having their mouths duct taped shut so they CAN'T yell FIRE! in there. Or in some of the more extreme gun laws, the comparable procedure would be that everyone have their larynx removed completely so there is absolutely NO chance at all that someone might even accidentally yell FIRE! in that theater.... :rolleyes:
 
I don't believe that outlawing guns will help any crime rate at all. If nothing else, look at the horrifying genocide in Rwanda.. where most of the killings were done with machetes and beatings! Outlawing guns will not help crime. Solving the issues that cause people to be successful criminals will help lower crime rates. More severe punishments, and better early education.
 
I say the old barbaric ways were pretty effective. I mean, if you murder someone, do a drive by shooting, armed robberies, rape, basically any violent crime, and you get caught and found guilty, you die. First time, every time. :shrug01: Then you don't have to mess with the honest gun bearing folk anymore.

You send them to jail, and a mere one out of a thousand actually comes out with a straight attitude. Most go and do something stupid again, this time "educated" by smarter criminals then themselves, :rolleyes: and we pay to house and feed them all over again.

Price of a .308 round, about 50¢ or so. (my personal favorite due to the message it sends to other scum)

Price of electrocution, what a couple bucks in electricity?

Who knows what gas chambers and lethal injection cost. But I'd wager it's fairly cheap too.

How much do you think it costs to feed and house them for 5 or 20 years?
 
crotalusadamanteus said:
I say the old barbaric ways were pretty effective. I mean, if you murder someone, do a drive by shooting, armed robberies, rape, basically any violent crime, and you get caught and found guilty, you die. First time, every time. :shrug01: Then you don't have to mess with the honest gun bearing folk anymore.

You send them to jail, and a mere one out of a thousand actually comes out with a straight attitude. Most go and do something stupid again, this time "educated" by smarter criminals then themselves, :rolleyes: and we pay to house and feed them all over again.

Price of a .308 round, about 50¢ or so. (my personal favorite due to the message it sends to other scum)

Price of electrocution, what a couple bucks in electricity?

Who knows what gas chambers and lethal injection cost. But I'd wager it's fairly cheap too.

How much do you think it costs to feed and house them for 5 or 20 years?
Click to expand...

You talk like you are from Texas or something....

This is one of the few times that I will have to disagree with you. Only because I do not believe in killing for any reason other than defending ones life or the life of another. Any other reason and it is just murder. And I wont even begin to get into the amount of innocent people killed or freed from death row that were wrongly convicted.

Now with that being said, I am a big proponent of public stonings. I really wish they would consider bringing them back into play again.

However, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the excessively high repeat offenders in this country. Our prison system itself is the biggest reason for repeat offenders. It breeds repeat offenders. We have been running our prisons basically the same way for over a 100 years. We need to try something new because this way aint working.

Which brings me back to public stonings....
 
You have a valid point. I hadn't considered that angle. But how many repeat offenders do we have to keep housing and paying for due to liberal law makers?

I just think we are way to lenient with proved criminals.
 
shrap said:
You talk like you are from Texas or something....

This is one of the few times that I will have to disagree with you. Only because I do not believe in killing for any reason other than defending ones life or the life of another. Any other reason and it is just murder. And I wont even begin to get into the amount of innocent people killed or freed from death row that were wrongly convicted.

Now with that being said, I am a big proponent of public stonings. I really wish they would consider bringing them back into play again.

However, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the excessively high repeat offenders in this country. Our prison system itself is the biggest reason for repeat offenders. It breeds repeat offenders. We have been running our prisons basically the same way for over a 100 years. We need to try something new because this way aint working.

Which brings me back to public stonings....
Click to expand...

Hmm... Stonings were generally TO DEATH, for the person being stoned weren't they?
Stoning, or lapidation, refers to a form of capital punishment whereby an organized group throws stones at the convicted individual until the person dies.
Click to expand...

Certainly that would qualify for "killing", now wouldn't it? :shrug01:
 
WebSlave said:
The problem with most gun laws is that they incorporate a presumption of probable guilt on the owners of such firearms. The laws presume that someone having the capability of committing a crime with such devices WILL commit the crime unless the devices are kept from them.

As an aside, many people will use the comparison relating to the first amendment that people can't yell FIRE! in a crowded movie theater, even though the first amendment reserves the right to free speech to "the people". Well that's fine and dandy, and certainly someone SHOULD be prosecuted if they did such a thing. But the difference is that the gun laws are the equivalent of everyone coming into the movie theater having their mouths duct taped shut so they CAN'T yell FIRE! in there. Or in some of the more extreme gun laws, the comparable procedure would be that everyone have their larynx removed completely so there is absolutely NO chance at all that someone might even accidentally yell FIRE! in that theater.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The other, very obvious, side to that is that the existing gun control laws are most effective at hindering your average Joe, law abiding citizen. The criminals don't really care if a gun is illegal, and don't follow the due processes.
 
WebSlave said:
Hmm... Stonings were generally TO DEATH, for the person being stoned weren't they?


Certainly that would qualify for "killing", now wouldn't it? :shrug01:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bill Stonegate said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bill Stonegate said:
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.
Click to expand...

PS, sorry for quoting myself, but don't try breaking into my house.
 
WebSlave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
shrap said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, of course you are right, Sammy. The problem is, not everybody has such a a responsible parent.
 
Bill Stonegate said:
Well, of course you are right, Sammy. The problem is, not everybody has such a a responsible parent.
Click to expand...

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.
 
shrap said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?"
 
Back
Top