Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 121 to 132 of 132

Thread: The 2nd Admendment

  1. #121
    Join Date
    12-21-17
    Posts
    872
    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenis View Post
    Firearm murders per capita from FBI statistics.




    Perhaps the chart that keeps being posted by Dork that shows Democrat controlled cities are the only ones on the list is from 2nd Amendment supporters who believe it their duty to take out those they feel are out of control Liberals trying to take away our Gunz.
    Any republican cities here......

  2. #122
    Join Date
    12-21-17
    Posts
    872
    Know a nurse who was at that Albuquerque NM VA hospital, they just moved last month to San Antonio....

    She is from the Bronx originally NYC and about 60 now....lived in NYC when it was really bad...and says it was better in NYC than Albuquerque now & thus they moved.

    She ahs a couple years left before retirement from the VA and transferred to a better VA hospital and area.....

    Quote Originally Posted by TxMusky View Post
    Albuquerque NM should be on there somewhere. I was there Monday and Tuesday and visited with an old friend yesterday and he said he was sitting in his living room with his wife watching TV, when a couple of robbers tried to enter his door and window with an ax. He showed me the pics and the only thing that stopped them was the burglar bars on the windows and doors. He said when the cops showed up they asked him why he didnt shoot the guy. My friend said his wife was very anti-gun, and the cop told her directly, if you live here you had better get a couple if you want to protect your home.

    They now have several in the house. Used to be the crooks were the ones who got to see the world through bars, now in some places the innocent have to look through them to be safe in their own home. That's sad.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    06-09-02
    Location
    Colorado Springs , Colorado
    Posts
    19,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Dork View Post
    Any republican cities here......
    The 2nd Amendment folks who believe the right is to provide themselves the method to overthrow a tyrannical government would not be apt to kill in conservative cities.

    Just another interpretation of that chart.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    My friend said there was always trouble there in Albuquerque, day or night, did not matter. He was betting me that we would see or hear a police chase while we sat in the restaurant drinking our tea. He was right.

    Out of all of the mass shooters that have happened that I know of there was only one that were members of the NRA, he was the guy that shot the shooter that slaughtered the people in the church in Texas. He used the same type of weapon to kill the guy that had just shot up an innocent church full of people. He used his for good, evil is in the person and not the gun.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    12-21-17
    Posts
    872
    Funny how Conservatives who believe in God, the bible, religion, faith, family, the flag and country have the lowest murder/death/kill rate across America.......

    Yet the **** talking democrats who push socialism, gun control have the highest rate of murder/death/kill across America.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenis View Post
    The 2nd Amendment folks who believe the right is to provide themselves the method to overthrow a tyrannical government would not be apt to kill in conservative cities.

    Just another interpretation of that chart.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    12-21-17
    Posts
    872
    It's sad when you can't even eat a meal in peace without being interrupted....

    Don't let the fact out that a NRA member stopped a mass shooting and terminated the shooter, that would be bad press for the anti gunners and they would ignore it....

    Quote Originally Posted by TxMusky View Post
    My friend said there was always trouble there in Albuquerque, day or night, did not matter. He was betting me that we would see or hear a police chase while we sat in the restaurant drinking our tea. He was right.

    Out of all of the mass shooters that have happened that I know of there was only one that were members of the NRA, he was the guy that shot the shooter that slaughtered the people in the church in Texas. He used the same type of weapon to kill the guy that had just shot up an innocent church full of people. He used his for good, evil is in the person and not the gun.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    10-21-01
    Location
    Columbia, S.C.
    Posts
    14,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenis View Post
    Hands and feet, doctors, and hospitals are not designed to kill a large number of people in a short time by weak deranged individuals. When a method is found, agreed upon, and enacted into law to keep these weapons out of the hands of weak, deranged people perhaps assault type weapons could once again be kept and carried by responsible citizens.
    One is never going to be able to sort through 7 billion people. Then once we do our little charts and grafts and it shows that... let's say fifty to one blacks are on the list compared to whites or that 35 to two Muslims over jews are subject to violence we're going to have to fudge the numbers. If we are completely with out a doubt correct in our assessments truth being without a doubt there for all to see we will have to change the assessments. We cannot prove to the world that anybody is inferior to anybody else. It will be a liberal program and they will not allow the truth to be known. So do we let some obvious bad go or label some obviously good bad??
    Does that make sense or am I of in the wrong direction again.
    This is your mind on drugs!

  8. #128
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    Quote Originally Posted by mgrist View Post
    One is never going to be able to sort through 7 billion people. Then once we do our little charts and grafts and it shows that... let's say fifty to one blacks are on the list compared to whites or that 35 to two Muslims over jews are subject to violence we're going to have to fudge the numbers. If we are completely with out a doubt correct in our assessments truth being without a doubt there for all to see we will have to change the assessments. We cannot prove to the world that anybody is inferior to anybody else. It will be a liberal program and they will not allow the truth to be known. So do we let some obvious bad go or label some obviously good bad??
    Does that make sense or am I of in the wrong direction again.
    That is pretty close to home as being the absolute truth. Of course if it shows a certain group seems to be on the bad side of the chart or graph, the sound of racism, sexist, prejudice or some other excuse will be tossed out there....always does. Nobody wants to admit that a PERSON is doing this, you would have to admit the facts then, but if you blame an inanimate object like a gun or knife, that has no voice to protest, then you can bypass the truth and blame something that can not fight back.

    Until people can deal with the truth of the matter, that those who are on the edge and could snap into a rage at any second over something they feel strongly about, really need to calm down and seek some help, nothing will change. To be honest, all of those people who think that rioting and having mass protests are going to solve anything, are kidding themselves and are adding to the problem. I would do a thorough check on any of the speakers at those protests before giving them any type of weapon, just because they are way to close to the action. Just like I would also check into the Cruz kid really deep, simply because he was damn sure on the edge and falling off of the side, having had the law called on him 36 times before.

    People need to face the truth and until they realize that throwing out all of the claims of "singling out" a particular group is somehow prejudice in any way and the results should be changed or reworded, is just covering up the real problem.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Couple of things to consider:

    1) the 2A was never really designed to protect the people in a Red Dawn type of scenario against a despotic federal government. The discussion was in the context of protecting the states from the dangers of a standing federal army but the discussion centered around organized state militias, where people brought their own guns and drilled on a regular basis. it is an subtle but important distinction. Yes, an armed citizenry. Yes, to protect from a standing army gone rogue. No, to a bunch of people just having guns and not being trained or organized into a body that is under control of the individual states.

    2) Not everyone at the time thought a standing army was a bad thing. Hamilton did not think so and interesting, neither did George Washington. He saw first hand the limits of militias in terms of discipline and training, and also saw how difficult it was to maintain an army in the field for any length of time by relying on individual states. His main accomplishment during the Revolution was 1) winning the last battle (always a good thing) and 2) keeping the army together throughout the war.

    3) The right to self-defense is just as important to the 2A as anything else. It is a natural right of man. Keep in mind that the Constitution is talking about the limits on government, not giving rights to the population. The citizens are themselves the repository of all rights and the Constitution just spells out how the government interacts with them. The Constitution does not grant free speech, for example. That is assumed as a right inherent in being a free citizen. Same with the possession of firearms for self-defense. A free citizen already has this right and the 2A is telling the government that there are limits on what the government can do.

    4) If you don't believe the last point, consider that wording of the Tenth Amendment:


    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Succinct and powerful. It says that the people hold all rights and are delegating the named rights to the government but are RETAINING EVERY OTHER RIGHT NOT NAMED. Most people pass over this amendment as being an afterthought but it represents the heart of our relationship to government. We the people are the source of all rights and anything we don't delegate to the government, we keep. Including the right to self-defense. This is so powerful - our government is something that has no power other than that which we choose to give it and anything we don't specifically give, we are keeping. An absolutely beautiful and powerful thought, in one crystalline sentence. Stunning.

    5) No right is absolute and Scalia, in the Heller decision, made the point that "unusual" weapons were never a part of the 2A. Can't have your own thermonuclear device. Sorry.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    12-21-17
    Posts
    872
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
    Couple of things to consider:


    5) No right is absolute and Scalia, in the Heller decision, made the point that "unusual" weapons were never a part of the 2A. Can't have your own thermonuclear device. Sorry.

    However, the muzzleloading flintlock musket with its attached bayonet was the evil black rifle of it's time & thus the AR 15 is comparable to this weapon platform.......

  11. #131
    Join Date
    10-21-01
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx.
    Posts
    18,387
    Cheers — Kevin back on the job talking sense once again...
    ...............
    “You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution


  12. #132
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dork View Post
    However, the muzzleloading flintlock musket with its attached bayonet was the evil black rifle of it's time & thus the AR 15 is comparable to this weapon platform.......
    I don't much have an opinion about that, actually. I do know that there is no real impediment to making regulations concerning the AR-15, at least in principle. The question becomes where you draw the line. I suspect that the line will be drawn not at an outright ban but on something that the Supreme Court can fudge on, such as a restriction on the capacity of the magazine. That would split the difference between making these rifles less lethal and still allowing their use. Whatever one thinks about the merits of the whole issue, I'm willing to bet actual money that the final outcome will be a compromise along this line since I think it would pass the Scalia test.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •