fc6f2772606633147a8d…

This is tatamount to placing a sign that says:
“Come steal me blind, I won’t defend myself or my property”.

Lawrence

Yes, it is. Which is the same ultimate result that would pervade if gun ownership were to be outlawed.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Zorro on February 14, 2007 at 8:52 PM

This is a very important quote. At the time when written the people who made up the militia where expected to bring their own weapons. The state or feds didn’t provide them weapons.

Even in today’s National Guard. The state doesn’t provide or own the military weapons, the Federal Government does.

The States and units are responsible for them when issued, but if the federal military wants them back the State has to give them back. Usually when the Army needs them, they also need the people to operate them, and the Guard Units are activated to federal service accordingly.

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1544/Jan_Markell

The second amendment clearly states that ‘the right of the people…’, thus it refers to individuals, not the States.

Another example is the tenth amendment, which reserves any rights not specified in the constitution to the States, ‘or to the people.’ Why make that distinction in one place but not the other?

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

Two points to ponder on just how stupid this is:

1) Think of the terrorist attacks in or against the US. My guess is that 9/11, the first WTC bombing, the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, Khobar Towers, USS Cole and the Oklahoma City bombing come to mind. How many guns were used in these? Zero! If you want to stop terrorism, according to this logic, we have to get rid of trucks, small boats, jet fuel, diesel fuel, fertilizer, airplanes, box cutters and duct tape. These were the weapons used in these terrorist attacks. And while we’re at it, let’s ban vests, cell phones, dead animals, ball bearings and small rocks to prevent suicide bombings and IEDs.

2) Let’s say that the Second Amendment is not worth the risks it imposes. The Constitution has a built-in process to repeal and approve amendments. In this way it is living. The problem that liberals have is that there is no way the US will repeal the Second Amendment. But they’ll rely on our excessive deference to the judiciary to attain what is impossible otherwise. It’s time we start removing judges from the bench who cannot understand the clear and intended meaning of the text and who also divine formerly hidden “rights” from the “penumbras, formed by emanations” of Constitution.

I hate to break it to those who disagree with me, but after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were accepted, states had laws regulating speech, religion, assembly, guns, and so forth.

Yes, and if those state wanted to join the Union, they had to change those laws to in accordance with the Constitution.

But the Second Amendment is the teeth.

Freedom becomes hard to swallow without both.

I too have “several” firearms and began shooting at around age 7. My favorite handgun is my H&K Mk23, rifle would have to be my late fathers’ pre 64 Win. Model 70 Featherweight…

And Happy St. Valentine’s Day.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

The simple truth is that states’ rights protect human rights better than the federal government does.

That site bothers the crap out of me.

Me too. The groups identity was the tip off. . . “Institute for Social Policy and Understanding”

How many groups need ‘understanding‘ when dealing with ’social policy’? And which social policy makers list their contributors as ‘scholars‘?

Want to bet the Saudi’s are funding this elephant as well?

This muhammedan hostile takeover is overwhelming . . .
Harvard in biggest curriculum overhaul in 30 years… after buying $40M of influence at Harvard and Georgetown Universities

Did you take a peek at the multimedia offerings? Here are a couple to ponder . . .

Susan Douglass
Council on Islamic Education
Topic: “Islam and Curriculum Reform”

Maha ElGenaidi
Islamic Networks Group
Topic: “Teaching Islam to Hospital and Law Enforcement Officials”

Patricia Hanson-Qureshi, Ph.D. candidate
University of Wisconsin
Topic: “School Headwear Policies: Legal Landscape, Policy Implications and Parent’s Role in Collaborating with Public School Districts”

Thing is, the gummint already knows who all the legal gun owners are. They just don’t know who the illegal owners are. We can certainly take away all the legal guns, but what about all the illegal ones?

Let’s ask Australia and see how it’s working out for them. I believe their violet crime rate went up. Like the saying goes- When gun ownership becomes criminal, only criminals will have guns.
-Lawrence

They also don’t know who the legal gun owners are that have had guns passed down through generations without registration- that’s still legal, right?

I read about an Australian who was losing sheep to wild dogs but couldn’t have a gun. The dogs lived in a little forest on his property so he started cutting it all down and they freaked out on him for that, too. Australia would be a good place to flee should our country get overrun by socialists, except for the gun laws.

Either give that minority of conservative actors a chance or see if well-known talk radio personalities are willing to do some charity work.

There is an amendment that apples to the States (Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People) so there is ample evidence that the Constitution is clear on which laws, as outlined in the Amendments, apply to States and which laws apply to people in general. The Constitution clearly established the difference between the States and the People yet the courts seem to confuse that distinction when ever it’s convenient.

The second amendment states clearly that “the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” so how can the courts say that it apples only to the states. Especially since that same Amendment includes the States in the passage “being necessary to the security of a free State.” That shows that the Amendment makes a clear distinction between States and people.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Look at it in total. This Amendment makes a clear distinction between Militias, States, and people yet the courts have ruled that the “people” in question are the States. That’s BS.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html

heroyalwhyness on February 14, 2007 at 9:17 AM

That site bothers the crap out of me. Their focus:
Economy
* Welfare Reform
* Islamic Finance
* Tax Policy
Politics
* Elections
* Faith Based Initiative
* Social Security
* Immigration
Education
* Higher Education
* School Vouchers
* Public/Private Schools

This fits entirely with their infiltrate and convert or kill ideology. The first steps.
the ISPU
Has anyone looked at them deeper? Hamas, hizbollah? the usual?

The LIBS CAN FIND PRIVACY rights that are CLEARLY NOT EMNUMERATED in the 14th Amendment…but CAN’T READ WHAT IS ALREADY CLEARLY WRITTEN??
seejanemom on February 14, 2007 at 10:26 AM

AMEN MAMA.

My dad gave me my first weapon at seven (7) years old. Yes, seven.
It was/is an Ithaca .22 single shot long rifle. My pride and joy for many years.
It came with hours of safety training and lessons. The kids who hurt themselves and others thru accidents do so from curiosity. I was able to go to the mountains and shoot with adults frequently, thus loosing the curiosity factor and gaining huge respect for all guns.
I have since accumulated a few more weapons and , well whats the saying? From my cold dead fingers?

I still need an AS50 semi-automatic sniper rifle ( .50 cal w/ 2 mile range), or the H&K MP7 A1

But I’m probably ok for now.

As someone who lives in an urban area, I would like to see some type of gun control (such as background checks, etc.). I know that is blasphemous to many of the people on this site, but that’s how I feel.

asc85 on February 14, 2007 at 10:39 AM

This already exists. Background checks are required for a variety of fire-arms, and one can not even own automatic weapons without a special permit. For those firearms that do not require specific background checks, registration of purchase is still required.

Thing is, the gummint already knows who all the legal gun owners are. They just don’t know who the illegal owners are. We can certainly take away all the legal guns, but what about all the illegal ones?

Let’s ask Australia and see how it’s working out for them. I believe their violet crime rate went up. Like the saying goes- When gun ownership becomes criminal, only criminals will have guns.

Unless the left can completely stop the manufacture, open borders smuggling, and homemade/garage-made weapons, criminals will still have guns. And if we stop the manufacture of fire-arms, can we stop the manufacture of other weapons?

Historically speaking the simple answer, is No.

Remove all firearms from your home and place a sign outside that clearly states “This is a gun-free home”.

Lone Star on February 14, 2007 at 11:37 AM

This is tatamount to placing a sign that says:
“Come steal me blind, I won’t defend myself or my property”.