Problems with 2nd Amendment

[Bass Ackward]

Here is my opinion on the second amendment.

The problem we have to defend is not from Zumbo. The problem is the 2nd Amendment itself. The intent, when it was written, was that the citizenry AND THE STATES to have access to exactly the same products to defend itself against the federal government.

At that time, the discussion was limited to guns, cannons, blackpowder for explosives. If the government had a tank, you should be able to own one. If the government had nuclear weapons, you and the states should be able to have the same thing.

If you are not exactly comfortable with your neighbor possessing nuclear weapons, then you in fact believe in restricting the intent of the 2nd Amendment. So once restrictions are in place, you have to fight everything from that point on.

OUR problem today is that we are dwindling in numbers and political power. We have to count on an educated populace to support the SPIRIT of the second amendment and thus us. As the citizenry becomes less gun smart, all guns will be harder to separate logically as time moves forward. You already see this today. If the media is successful in .... educating the public to the dangers of assault weapons or handguns, we lose that support.

Example: A week or two ago some guy shot up a shopping mall in Utah I believe. He had a shotgun and a handgun. After all the people that were shot and killed or wounded by the shotgun, the last line of the news article read, "Thank God he never got the chance to use the handgun." This implies to me that more people would have died if he had been using the handgun instead of the shotgun which we know is bunk.

So we are faced with either drawing a line in the sand for as long as we can until we lose, then we are at politicians mercy to tell us what we "may" have. Or we can try and stretch that out by giving in to things along the way. Do you really believe that if machine guns were still fully legal that we wouldn't have lost more by now? SO I can see some logic to what Zumbo was saying. He was speaking in the context of "hunting" not guns. If you truly care about your right to hunt "MORE" than your right to bear arms, then give up anything the media can educate the public with against you.

It is this debate that we have to deal with today because limitations have already been placed on the second amendment. We gave up automatics. Is more on the way? Yes, for those that see the train coming.

I will add this, because of today's stand together attitude of polititions, for those of you that have voted Democrat at any point in time because you favor their policies, YOU are more guilty than Zumbo of giving up our rights. Zumbo voiced an opinion which is still protected also. But voting is empowering. Democrats are the enemy, not Zumbo.

[felix]

Perfect expose in all aspects, John! The further we get from the "Source", the dimmer the view gets. We are talking time and distance here. Won't be long now until we have multiple US constitutions, one per federal district. Just following what happened to the greatest document of all time, the Bible. ... felix

[1Shirt]

Bass has it pretty well pegged I think. The more we have liberal education, political correctness, and computerization of society the more we get away from the basics and necessities of civilization and survival. Few today have to depend on the gun to survive, put food on the table, or defend ourselfs. We have allowed ourselfs to "Outsource" these things. This is particularly true in large population density areas of the north east and on the left coast. England is a good example of what we may become if we as gun owners, shooters, and hunters don't work hard to preserve our right to have, shoot, and hunt with what we bought and paid for. The English and most europeans for that matter just accept the fact that the Govt. controls their right to own, shoot, and hunt. Only the wealthy own, shoot, and hunt over there. There may be exceptions to that but if so they are very few. Look at what the Auzzies have gone through in the past few years. If we are not careful, we could be soon facing the same thing.
1Shirt!:coffee:

[sundog]

Bass, dwindling numbers should not be a hinderance. Minoroty groups groups get what they want all the time by hollering louder. Almost sounds as if you are giving in before the battle starts.

When the BoRs was ratified we had weapons of mass destruction; canons, frigates, etc. All latest technology for that period. The Second, if I'm not mistaken, is about 'indivdual' arms. Your comments about tanks and nukes and such is not necessarily valid.

I've mentioned this at least several times in the last couple of weeks:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

It's a long read that not only provides the historical background, but an in depth analysis. If you are going to discuss the Second, this, along with alot of other stuff, must be in your arsenal.

[Dale53]

BassAckward;
Thanks for the insightful comments. You'll, no doubt, draw some fire. However, your comments seem to be on point.

Our best chance is to support those Pro-gun organizations that WE prefer but never loose sight of the fact that we, INDIVIDUALLY, have a responsibility to speak up to those politicians who are against our interest. Be sure to NEVER miss a chance to vote for the right people (from your local garbage collector on up to President), make it your business to learn all you can about people running for office and educate those around you. Eternal vigilance is required.

If just HALF of us had reacted against the REAL threat to us (anti-gun politicians) like the example of Zumbo, we would be in MUCH better shape than we are, politically speaking. Progress has been made (Ohio now has a decent CCW, now, even if it did take nearly ten years (mostly under a Republican Governor that fought us tooth and nail) we DID prevail.

FWIW
Dale53

[sundog]

Okay, a couple of you beat me to the draw. I don't think Bass got it right. The English had and didn't at different times in the history (read the DOJ analysis). The Aussie don't. The Canadians don't. We do. The U.S. Constitution is a major stumbling block to the libs who are hell bent on establishing themselves as a ruling (and untouchable privileged) class. The no titles of nobility thing is also a major problem for them. The First is also under major attack, witness the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act. No, we're not asking for anything to be changed. What we are asking for is for THEM not to insist on changing anything. Stick to the Constitution.

[Junior1942]

. . . . Democrats are the enemy, not Zumbo.There's many pro-gun Democrats. I'm one. The real enemy is (1) the Republican spin doctors who make you believe such statements, and (2) the people who call for a one party system. Is that what you want? A one party system of government?

[woody1]

never loose sight of the fact that we, INDIVIDUALLY, have a responsibility to speak up to those politicians who are against our interest. ... ..... If just HALF of us had reacted against the REAL threat to us (anti-gun politicians) like the example of Zumbo, we would be in MUCH better shape than we are, politically speaking. Progress has been made (Ohio now has a decent CCW, now, even if it did take nearly ten years (mostly under a Republican Governor that fought us tooth and nail) we DID prevail.

FWIW
Dale53

Don't forget economics. Find out who is contributing to the campaigns and work against them also. You can see that y'all are funding the politicians that are helping take away our rights. Any of you who belong to unions are prob'ly contributors...Regards, Woody

[drinks]

The SLC attack was in fact, a suicide Muslim terrorist action, which has been carefully covered up by the press and authorities by calling it a student gun party.
With this sort of media actions, we cannot expect to get the word out to the average citizen about the 2nd

[felix]

Junior, it's called divide and conquer. Nobody wants to follow the Constitution (or the Bible) as it was Implied (caps intended). .... felix

[Bass Ackward]

Please don't think I am against democrats or for republicans. But in today's system of politicians needing support of the political party to get funding and elected, ALL politicians must do as they are told or risk going it alone. Virtually every vote you see taken, pretty much goes down party lines. There is only one party that now sponsors anti- gun legislation because it receives funding from anti gun organizations. Hard to argue against that.

Corky,

I believe that the second amendment was meant to include more than weapons of the day. The founding fathers were afraid of BIG government. The spirit of what they wrote because this was all they knew to include was expressed in weapons and explosives of the day.

The founding fathers NEVER BELIEVED that THEY HAD TO EVEN CONSIDER protecting your gun rights if the rest of the constitution was followed!!!!!!!!!

But the second amendment WASN"T written specifically to defend your gun rights. The second amendments was to defend YOUR RIGHT to be able to DEFEND THE Constitution from all enemies, foreign and .... domestic. That was to include the federal government if it made itself an enemy of the people. If you mean to keep things on an even playing field, then BOTH sides must posses the same things. It's just they didn't envision further weaponry.

[sundog]

Drinks, got anything to substantiate the SLC thing as terrorist?

Junior, two party system is good. Problem is from time to time either or both parties get to far one way or the other of center. Our Governor, a Dem, has been friendly to the gun owners here. OTH, let's wait and see how many from each party vote for the new "assualt weapon" ban renewal now in Congress introduced by McCarthy (already!). Extremist views, in either direction, tend to create divisivion even within one's own ranks. Yet extremist views most often tend to serve the interest of only very small minorities, and many times restrict previous held rights and privileges of others, usually the majority. That's not a function of either party, but a result of an extremist view.

[Bret4207]

There's many pro-gun Democrats. I'm one. The real enemy is (1) the Republican spin doctors who make you believe such statements, and (2) the people who call for a one party system. Is that what you want? A one party system of government?

Junior- We know you're one of the good guys. You're an old fashioned Dem. But you are one in a sea of millions of left wing Dems. It's not "right wing spin" to say the Dem party as a whole is anti-gun. And I don't think anyone who looked at the big picture would want a one party system. The problem is the Dems/Liberals/Greens/Communists/etc. on the whole are backing the idea of reducing your TRADITIONAL rights and lifestyles while promoting the new age/one world order/liberal agenda issues like gay marrige, vegetarianism, radical enviromentalism, etc. Proof of the Dems partys left wing slant, along with many moderate Republicans slant, is easily seen in the arguement over the Iraq war. What leaadership will they provide when Iran starts heating up? When will they recognize the fact this is a generational war for our very existance and we need the poulance to know how to use weapons? They won't my friend, and there's why it's sad to see a good guy like you sticking to a party which has abandonded YOU!

[woody1]

There's many pro-gun Democrats. I'm one. The real enemy is (1) the Republican spin doctors who make you believe such statements, and (2) the people who call for a one party system. Is that what you want? A one party system of government?

Here we go. I was afraid this was coming. Yes Junior, there ARE many pro gun Democrats, however the Party as a group tends to lean far in the other direction. Witness the (and I don't recall names) ones who are elected with at least a glimmer of hope to us gun owners who then are forced into a nonfavorable gun vote in order to 1) gain support for their own favorite legislation or 2) to maintain party support for re-election. I'm not going any further in this 'cause I don't want any flaming debate going on here. Just let me say this, there is something you can do that MIGHT influence the Dem's to begin to lean the other way (if enough of us do it). If I can get it in here, I'll attach a copy of a letter that a Democrat could send to all the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee.



February 26, 2007
The Honorable Stephen I. Cohen
House of Representatives
1004 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4209

Re: H.R. 1022

Representative Cohen:

I am writing regarding a matter that is of the utmost importance to me. Although I am not one of your constituents, I am a card carrying (registered) Democrat. I am the son of a democrat and my father until his death was a significant contributor to the Democratic National Committee. I live in Lake County, Oregon a "red" county in a "blue" State. I am sure you can check that by obtaining voter registration records. I am somewhat conservative but have not previously been a one issue voter. That may change. If you and others in the Democratic party continue on the path of attempting to erode my 2nd Amendment rights and the rights of the other millions of law-abiding gun owners with such frivolous and frankly unconstitutional laws such as the new "Assault Weapons Ban" H.R.1022, I will be forced to reconsider my party affiliation when I vote.

Your actions on these matters may not totally decide my vote but I will seriously consider them as I determine how I vote in the next election.

The DOJ found the first "Assault Weapons Ban" had no significant effect on gun related crime because "assault weapons" are only very rarely used in crime. There has been no substantive evidence presented that "the ban" had any significant effect on reducing crime, and as it represents a serious infringement on Second Amendment rights that has produced no worthwhile public safety benefit, I respectfully urge you to oppose all efforts to renew the "Assault Weapons Ban" and any other attempts to erode the 2nd Amendment rights of myself and millions of other law-abiding gun owners.

Sincerely,


friendly gun owner
My phone number
You get the idea. Regards, Woody

[B747]

There's many pro-gun Democrats. I'm one. The real enemy is (1) the Republican spin doctors who make you believe such statements, and (2) the people who call for a one party system. Is that what you want? A one party system of government?

Junior1942 --- You may be a pro-gun Democrat, but the record of your party for the last few decades has been an continuous "assault" on gun ownership rights.

Here is an NRA Alert from another Democrat try from just a few days ago:

************************************************** ***
THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.”

McCarthy’s verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by “assault weapons ban” is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation’s murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy’s “other purposes” would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

• Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

• Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

• All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip,” and would also ban their main component, called the “receiver.”)

• All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip.”

• Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 “Garand.”)

• Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn’t “sporting,” even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

• 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned “assault weapon” with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!
************************************************** *****

You can find the complete Bill at :
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

Wally

[mike in co]

i'm pretty much a constitionalist(?).......

it was written for a reason....
i do not need a politician , a lawyer or a news editor to "interpet" it for me....

it is plain simple english....

[felix]

Corky, I think John is correct about what instruments were Intended in the Second. ... felix

[sundog]

Bass, the Founders did not live in a vacuum. I'm sure they were well aware of technological advances not only in weaponry, but other things - science, medicine, everything. Benjamin Franklin, and many others, were very well aware that the world they knew was advancing and changing. I can't argue with you on the why. They wanted to insure that the owners of the new country could resist tyannical rule, like that which they had just severed with the King. But, because of English law, they also knew that these new citizens had a God granted RIGHT to defend themselves. Envisioning future weaponry is not a valid argument. Again, they were well aware of advances in technology. How many citizens back then privately owned a Man-or-War? This is about individual arms.

Y'all really need to read the DOJ opinion (the whole thing) and everything else from the Founders and since that you get ahold of.

[1Shirt]

Junior, As long as you are a Harry Truman dem, I will never have a problem with you. Besides, I like the way you post, and your common sense approach to a lot of things. Now if you can educate some of your fellow dems, and they in turn can educate some of their fellow dem associates, we might be able to get the party on the right track. Maybe we should send Hillery and Chucky Shumer, and Ted Kennedy down to you for some of that common sense training!
1Shirt!:coffee:

[carpetman]

Yes the Republicans are all pro gun and do a lot. Look what they have done about the 1968 Gun Control Act. All the republican years since then and it still exists. It is a real fine law. Put some very good companies to include Herters out of business and I know of little else it has done. The NRA has to be included on this. With all their power and money,what have they done about it? It still exists. But the NRA(and mostly the Supreme Court) did give us Bush. Lets see $3 gallon gas( I bet he has many friends that love that) and we spent billions punching holes in the Middle East(thanks Scrounger for the correction)) and many billions more patching them up. And more importantly AMERICAN LIVES. Wish they'd punch some holes in my house and come upgrade everything. When we first went,I actually thought they pulled their 9-11 BS now we go kick ass and take names. If we cant go for the real reason,we'll use weapons of mass destruction as the ticket. For the first time ever,I had some use for Bush. I thought my kind of guy afterall. Were our twin towers etc rebuilt by them? Why are we rebuilding theirs? If as much effort was spent on Bush's drug usage as was spent on Clintons sex life,I think it would be fact that Bush is not eligible for the posistion the Supreme Court put him in. He certainly makes me proud to be Democrat. My dad was also Democrat and my grandfather. When I went to Guam,I didnt take my guns as there is a severe rust problem there. The only house I ever lived in that did not have guns.

[Junior1942]

1Shirt, I like to call myself an Earl Long Democrat.

[Scrounger]

CarpetMan is wrong in his post: It's Middle East, not Far East. Other than that, he's spot on. Not that I'm endorsing Democrats; I'd cheer just as loud when Hillary steps on the gallows as I would when George takes his rightful place there. How about we do them both at once and make everybody happy?

[carpetman]

Scrounger--Thanks, far East didnt seem right when I posted,but nothing else came to mind.

[handyrandyrc]

The SLC attack was in fact, a suicide Muslim terrorist action, which has been carefully covered up by the press and authorities by calling it a student gun party.

And who told you that? The kid was a sociopath. He also happened to be Muslim. There isn't any cover-up. Eric Harris was a sociopath. At 9 or 10 years old, he pulled a knife on the landlord, "I'm going to kill you!" When the landlord asked why would you do something like that, his reply was, " Just because I wanna!" This kid had other incidents like that in his life -- he held a girl down on the playground and told her he was going to kill her.

I'm sorry, some people are just broken and irrepairable, even from their youth. It's estimated that 10% of males born today are sociopaths of one degree or another. And where are they? Filling the prisons, behaving badly, etc.

[handyrandyrc]

But back on topic, I don't think either party cares. George Bush senior signed a big ban himself. Clinton signed a ban. George junior said he'd sign another assault weapons ban if it were put on his desk.

I'm sorry, I have fun with my rifles and pistols, but I will be completely honest with what they are for. I'm not going to spin it. They are for defending the lives of myself and those I love. They aren't for hunting. Not for shooting paper targets. While I may do those things with them, it's not their first purpose.

Life is recognized as a god-given right. A RIGHT. They want us to believe it's a privilege. And we have the right to defend our lives with whatever means necessary. The 2nd amendment guarantees us that RIGHT.

[robertbank]

Carpetman I think one reason why no nation offered to rebuild the twin towers is you were not attacked by Iraq or any other country. Rather by a bunch of terrorists who have a major dislike for western society and specifically Americans. Those terrorists resided in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban, not Iraq. Saddam would never tolerated that bunch as they would have represented a threat to him and his dictatorship.

Bush and his cohorts are the only ones who really know why the US attacked Iraq. I hope one day the rest of us will know too.

Take Care

Bob

[Bass Ackward]

I think you guys miss my point. IF you look at guns as a single issue, the problem IS democrats, plain and simple. They get ALL the anti-gun lobby money and efforts.

The problem is big money that is required for people to get to .... and stay in power.

If you limit the amount of time people can stay in power, .... you limit the damage they can do and thus the money that goes to them. Big money will not seek an investment that it can't get a return on.

Term limits get us back our constitution, our represenatives, our government and frees us from minority rule of a few who control and donate large amounts of money. No matter what the issue.

[45 2.1]

Term limits get us back our constitution, our represenatives, our government and frees us from minority rule of a few who control and donate large amounts of money. No matter what the issue.

Yes, this is true. Now, just how do we get these so called servants of the people to vote in term limits hanging their ambitions.

[Scrounger]

Not really, Bass. If I'm a greedy, dishonest SOB and I'm only going to be in the candy store for 4 years, I think I could put enough in my pockets to last me the rest of my life. Remember most of the money, honest and dis-honest, they make now goes back into the 'Get Re-elected Pot'. Their net worth would increase a lot faster without that problem. Fear of severe punishment is the only answer.

[9.3X62AL]

Lest we stray into a heated screaming match about politics here........Americans in the Deep South have a pretty strong distrust of Republican politics that dates from our Civil War/War of Northern Aggression. It is in that light that present-day conservatives must assess the politics of our southern folk. This distrust is not as pronounced as it was 1-2 generations ago, but we see it even here on this board.

Liberal mush-headedness causes difficulties across the spectrum of public policy, not just in the interpretation of civil rights like gun ownership. Like Mike in CO, I am a strict constructionist and literalist when it comes to interpretation of the language contained in the U.S. and State Constitutions. Plain English is self-evident, as are the truths enumerated in our Declaration of Independence.

The Bill of Rights is best viewed (my opinion) as a laundry list of specific grievances the Founding Fathers had with their former British mother country's rule, and were listed in such a way as to proscribe any federal government from usurping rights or re-instituting oppressive policies. State constitutions contain very similar langauge, and via selective incorporation per the 14th Amendment state constitutions and statutes are obliged to follow guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution when state government is remiss in that regard, often via Supreme Court decisions.

There is relatively little case law concerning the 2nd Amendment. "MIller vs. United States" (1938) is a case that COULD overturn the so-called "assault weapon" statutes on both State and Federal levels--but neither NRA nor the antis seem eager to push any gun rights issue all the way to The Supremes. I suspect the reason for this is uncertainty of outcome, and uncertainty of the popular reaction to that outcome. It's pretty scary for both sides.

Just my view of it.

[carpetman]

Robertbank---I realize we were not attacked by a country. Lets say the U.S. had a terrorist group lets call them Widget makers that attacked another country. Totally not a U.S. sanctioned deal. I think the U.S. would track down every last one of the widget makers and would be helping rebuild whatever country they attacked. This did not happen in 9-11. A defacto endorsement I think it would be called.

[Harpman]

After 9-11...I cant see us losing, anyone can try to take our guns, but it aint gonna happen..I went 15 years with no guns after being raised with them and being in the army, then 9-11 came, I seen how we were left out to Bin Ladens wims, they knew dam well he was coming..well now the result is. I will die with a gun in my hand before giving it to anyone..And I think there are millions like me..also Katrina just reinforced my position..and with that southern border wide open..we know they still dont give a shit about us...I am armed and dam dangerous !

[Bret4207]

Well, this is deteriorating into another waste of bandwidth. It's the infighting that kills us. The plain fact is we all have to stick together whether we like our partys leadership or not. Hillary sucks, Barack sucks, and so does Bush. OK? So are you guys still with me in fighting to retain our rights for as long as we can or not?

[vmt_hntr]

I'm in....
Bob in Indiana

[montana_charlie]

Bush and his cohorts are the only ones who really know why the US attacked Iraq. I hope one day the rest of us will know too.
I would like to speak on that subject, but won't hijack this thread do do so.
Instead, I'll open a new thread titled 'Why Iraq?' in the Humor and Off Topic section.

On the general subject being discussed here I'll just say that 'sporting arms' were not the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. For too many years the NRA worked to 'protect the rights of sportsmen'. That got the politicians in the habit of looking at firearms whith an eye toward 'usefulness in a sporting enterprise'.

That view can affect the opinion of any Congressman when confronted with sawed-off shotguns, Saturday night specials, and military-style rifles. Having been conditioned to look at things from the 'sporting' popint of view, it's understandable that they may feel these weapons are 'unnecessary'...and perhaps even 'dangerous'.

I don't remember (now) how long ago it was that the NRA wised up, but they got away from the 'sporting arms' thing and turned their efforts to 'arms'...which happens to be the word used in the 2nd.

Big or little, long or short...even sawed off...they are all arms, and the 2nd doesn't discriminate. The right to keep 'em, and bear 'em, "shall not be infringed".
CM

[carpetman]

Bass Ackwards---You are correct the problem is the Democrats--they get all the anti lobby money. Yippers all the democrat anti lobby money has watered down the NRA to where they can't buy an election for a republican.

[piwo]

There's many pro-gun Democrats. I'm one. The real enemy is (1) the Republican spin doctors who make you believe such statements, and (2) the people who call for a one party system. Is that what you want? A one party system of government?,

Junior 1942, nice try, but did your powder get wet? Maybe try a card wad between the powder and the bullet, cause those misfires are a bummer.......

Are you an elected official at the national level? Because while there re definitely those who are democrats that own firearms (certainly plenty of them) those elected officials of their party not only vote against, but lead the charge to remove our rights. No spin, just reality. No one can shine a turd like the democratic spin doctors, nobody. Look at every firearm vote that's taken place in the house and senate for the last 15 years, and then tell me it's spin. Those numbers speak for themselves. Trying to pawn this off as republican spin doctors may work when you look in the mirror every morning, but you convince only yourself. The undeniable evidence is in the congressional vote. They tell a different story then you suggest.

It pains me to see firearm enthusiasts so engrossed in their party identification that they refuse to see the irrefutable evidence before them. The democratic party has adopted the anti-gun platform. Period. Not all individuals, but the party has. Those that pay for their re-election are anti gun, and they vote the way their masters dictate. We used to have pro gun Dems in Missouri, still do, but not pro gun enough to vote their stated beliefs when up against their party leadership. Our CCW was defeated one year by one vote, by MY democrat house member, who while voting for the bill every time at every step of the process, changed his vote in the over ride session because his party masters twisted his screws. Took another 9 years to recover from that one. Oh, btw, he's not in MO politics any longer

Bravado is bravado.:how these people vote is what's important. As long as so called "pro gun" people keep putting the people in office who seek to turn back our RIGHTS, we will lose. No spin, just reality. Republicans ain't saints, and there are plenty who will blink and cover their ass( our very own Jim Talent I blame greatly for the ASW, since he was one of only a handfull (less then 10) republicans to vote for it). But I challenge you to look at the congressional votes and tell me who's voting for what, then tell me it's SPIN. Your statement has absolutely no legs to it. Plenty of Dem's who own guns, far fewer do state their convictions with their votes.

Carpetman - since 1968, how many years have the Republicans held both houses of congress, AND the white house? How many years have the Dem's? Republicans had all three for 6 years, and by a majority at times of a single vote. DEMS held it for years with veto proof advantages in the senate and by HUGE numbers in the house. None are saints, but if you were in Vegas, or if someone had a gun to your head or a knife to your back (or a loved one), and you had to "VOTE" the odds, which way would you vote? Silly question, since the answer is obvious by the voting record.

I hate political threads, because nothing good much comes from them. As long as true believers believe, it's just an exercise of futility. This is why our cause is pretty much doomed. The other side doesn't care about conscience or the like, they care about winning. So long as gun owners vote for those who will vote against them, the cause is doomed. Period.

[onceabull]

Piwo, et al: Take heart , George IV opined that our cause was hopeless many years ago-- there may well be a point in time,when the equivalent royalty among the politicos here will be taught a fine lesson... it won't do to be numbered amongst them or their camp followers. :twisted: Onceabull :twisted:

[Hunter]

divided we fall, it would seem some have already fallen.
Easy on President Bush, he is the president. We can fight them over there or over here.

[carpetman]

Hunter--Yes he is the president* But his approval rating is in low 30% last I heard.


* Thanks once atleast to the Supreme Court

[Hunter]

Well there is always Hillary.
Don't believe everything the liberal media tells you.
If you think we are in bad shape you can bet your best mule if John Kerry was in charge we would be sending love letters instead of troops.

[robertbank]

" We can fight them over there or over here"

Well if you are referring to Iraq they never were "over here". About the only thing "fighting them "over there" with regards to Iraq has accoplished was/is to save El Quida air fare.

Hopefully the US, Syria, Iran trilateral meetings will provide a relief in the fighting long enoough for Bush to declare victory and get the troops out of there.

Take Care

Bob

[Hunter]

Well you are right they were never over here, that does not mean they have not considered it.
I saw a sign the other day "President Bush protecting you hind end whether you like it or not".
If yall think pacifying that crowd will solve anything one of us is crazy. I am ready to admit I am.

[Bass Ackward]

I think discussions like this are great. It's the only way to educate. We need to see why .... WE CONTINUE .... to have this threat hanging over us year after year.

We are worried about trying to save something that is "important to us" .... but .... not to the point that that it costs me something else. So we bury our head in the sand and pull that Democrat lever far to often.

As Senator Lieberman found out this year in his bid to get his parties nomination for senator again, you don't take positions against the Democratic Party or they will not back you for re-election. So the message has been sent! Vote party line or you are OUT!

Regardless of all other issues or fears. The threat to our "gun rights" is not our free speech, or our holly "from my cold dead hands" stand, but politics.

[TAWILDCATT]

I am an endowment member of the NRA.have been a member since 1939.having said this I have questions to about the NRA leadership also.i have questions about the REPUBLICANS. I vote republican.problem is gun owners fail the test.only a strong response to attacks against us will work.if the NRA and others are not backed by a forcefull gun owner response we lose.in 1934 we lost our first battle."stop the criminals they said"but it took in all gun owners.but its only commerce they said.all supreme court desitions since the constitution was passed have ruled in favor of individual rights.most rulings skirt the second amendment.the supremes do not want to rule on it.for it would take a way the power to pick and choose who to prosecute.

[carpetman]

Piwo---I'll take your word that the Republicans have only had control of Senate House and White House for ONLY 6 years since 1968. 6 years is not nearly enough time to take any action whatsoever on getting rid of the 1968GCA. To my knowledge the Republicans have taken none---but heck ONLY 6 years they could not have done so--yes it's the Democratcs fault. Now a pay raise or some other perk could easily be done in 6 years---but getting rid of the 1968 GCA--not enough time. I know that the 2nd is dear to ALL Republicans,I've read it on these forums for years.

[Chargar]

Here is my take on the 2nd. Ammendment. Submited to a local paper a few years ago. Caused an interesting stir.




Opinion Letter Submitted to the Valley Morning Star - May 12, 2000

Charles Graff


It is with great interest, that I watch the national debate over guns, the laws dealing with them and there place in our society. Most often, the debate results in those who like guns lining up against those who don’t. The lines are drawn on an emotional level and not the level of reason. We as a people have developed a sense of national amnesia regarding this issue. The issue in not whether we like guns or not. Or even what they do or don’t do in contemporary society. The issues isn’t even guns. The issue is sovereignty and the nature of our liberty as free Americans.

At Runnymede, a bunch of nobles handed King John the Magna Carta on the point of a sword. This document denied the King his “divine right”, and resulted in a power sharing arrangement with the rest of the nobles. Sovereignty thus became a shared concept. The nobility now had a piece of the pie.

Its was here, in this great land, that sovereignty was fully and completely vested in the people. In our system, the government governs by consent of the governed. We the people are sovereign and delegate certain aspects of that sovereignty to local, state, and federal governments. But make no mistake about it, we are sovereign.

Sovereignty is meaningless without the means to enforce it. The founding fathers were aware of this and wrote the right to keep and bear arms into the Constitution of the United States. The first battle of the American Revolution was fought over a cache of arms and munitions. Jefferson sort of summed the whole thing up when he said that when the people fear the government there is tyranny, and when the government fear the people there is liberty.

Before World War II, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as granting the states, the right to maintain militias. Since that time, a lot of scholarly research has been done, trying to determine what was the intend of the writers of the Constitution. Overwhelmingly, this research shows that the 2nd. Amendment was intended to grant the right to keep and bear arms to the individual citizen. Sovereigns need the means to enforce their sovereignty, don’t you know. Justice Scalia noted this body of recent scholarship in a concurring opinion he wrote a couple of years ago.

Yes, I know that a bunch of guys with handguns, rifles and shotguns can’t take on the government. I certainly would not advocate that they should and please leave me out if they try.
But the private ownership of firearms in an indicia of sovereignty where it is practical or not.

You may or may not like guns, that is your personal choice. But if you value your liberty as a free American, then you do have a dog in this fight! The disarming of a people, either suddenly or incrementally, is the prelude to tyranny. This is the core issue.

[Scrounger]

Well said.

[piwo]

Piwo---I'll take your word that the Republicans have only had control of Senate House and White House for ONLY 6 years since 1968. 6 years is not nearly enough time to take any action whatsoever on getting rid of the 1968GCA. To my knowledge the Republicans have taken none---but heck ONLY 6 years they could not have done so--yes it's the Democratcs fault. Now a pay raise or some other perk could easily be done in 6 years---but getting rid of the 1968 GCA--not enough time. I know that the 2nd is dear to ALL Republicans,I've read it on these forums for years.

First of all, I can’t do anything to convey tone, other then I’m truly baffled. Don’t read any yelling or intentions to take shots at anyone. I’m just so damn baffled I can’t reconcile it.

Carpetman, you continue to reference a piece of legislation that was passed with Democrats in control of the house (243-192) and Senate(62-38) and signed by Lyndon Johnson on October 22 1968, yet it's the Republicans fault it became law and is still on the books? They kept that advantage for the following 12 years as well, with advantages in congress over 100 seats and 30 in the senate. FWIW in the last 50 years (’56-‘06), DEMS held both houses of congress for 32 years, and all three (prez) for 12 years. Republicans held both for 12 years, and all three for 6 years. During years of advantage, DEMS never held as slim a majority in any year that the Republicans did. The only veto proof majorities were held by dems in the early – mid 1960’s.

Question: How many anti-gun pieces of legislation became law at the national level during the past 12 years the Republicans held those two houses (6 years with a democrat president who pushed, lobbied AND championed the AWB, and all the trappings with it)? None, that's how many. It's not that there weren't dozens submitted each year, (plenty of gun sights that list them all for your action) it's just that when you control the committee's, you control what gets heard. I could use your rationale against you on any topic you wish to bring up just as you can on me. It's pointless.

I’m a guy who voted for several DEMS in my state and the national level over the years. On this issue (and it is the single most important issue I chose candidates on), I have no party allegiance at any level. What is important is that we WIN, or stop LOSING. If it’s a fighting retreat, then fight. Right now we’re poised to lose it in large chunks, yet we make excuses for those doing it to us. Right now the republicans may be distasteful to life long dems, but they are the only ally we have right now. As soon as dems produce those that will not vote their parties anti gun line, how the heck can ANY gun owner vote for one? I would not have voted for Jim Talent in subsequent elections after his flip flop on AWB’93, but the people who ran against him were all rated F in their support of firearm stances and votes.

Why can’t card carrying DEMS come to grips that the party of favor is financed by the anti gun lobby and they vote accordingly. It’s not even close; they now vote their party line and not their conscience. If and when the republicans do, all is certainly lost. Now, it’s only lost so long as the true believers can’t get on board with reality. It’s a tough thing. I’ve had to come to grips that not all the guys I’ve helped put into office worked out and some downright crummy, and that’s a bad pill to swallow. I helped put bubba Clinton and his gun ban’s in by voting for Ross Perot as well. But that’s history, I learned my lesson. I’m here to WIN and I could care less who daddy voted for or who my church told me to vote for or my trade union.

I’m here to WIN.
Anything less is a betrayal of the cause. Folk’s rail on Zumbo here yet on this very forum folks continue to put people in office they know will lead to our denial of rights. I’m thoroughly baffled.

I need a drink.

[Old Ironsights]

Piwo---I'll take your word that the Republicans have only had control of Senate House and White House for ONLY 6 years since 1968. 6 years is not nearly enough time to take any action whatsoever on getting rid of the 1968GCA. To my knowledge the Republicans have taken none---but heck ONLY 6 years they could not have done so--yes it's the Democratcs fault. Now a pay raise or some other perk could easily be done in 6 years---but getting rid of the 1968 GCA--not enough time. I know that the 2nd is dear to ALL Republicans,I've read it on these forums for years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1096

H.R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans
HR 1096 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1096
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


February 15, 2007

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1993 LAW PROVIDING FOR A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF A HANDGUN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM TO BE CONTACTED BY FIREARMS DEALERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM.

Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.


SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION.

(a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'; and

(2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes'.

(b) Section 921(a)(4)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'.

(c) Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes'.

(d) Section 921(a)(17)(C) of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,'.

(e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community'.

(f) Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and'.

(h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B)'.

(i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and (b)(3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes' and inserting `lawful purposes'.


SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005.

(a) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code-

(1) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (z).

(2) Section 924 of such title is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `(f), or (p)' and inserting `or (f)'; and

(B) by striking subsection (p).

(b) Repealer- Section 5 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note; 119 Stat. 2099) is repealed.


SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.

[dale clawson]

The reasoning powers of people is a constant source of amazement to me. When a movie about Cuba invading the USA came out in the 80's, (Think the title was Amerika) I was astounded when some people called in to a talk radio program to say the movie made them be concerned about the NRA and all those guns. Excuse me! We're the good guys! That's exactly why Cuba would never have invaded the US, the armed citizens would have kicked their butts so fast they would have thought it was the Bay of Pigs in reverse. You would think that the thought of the NRA and guns would be a comforting thought in that context. A populance so indoctrinated to be anti gun is not a rational populance. Thats what is scarey to me. Reason plays no role in so much of this. I do not vote a party line, but at the national level, it is hard to trust a dem., as the party pressure is great enough to sway votes, and there is no denying the anti gun bent of the dems. That said, I don't trust John Mc Cain, He's too chummy with Kerry and Teddy. Birds of a feather rings in my head there, and he seems to willing to test the political winds and turn like a weather vane. Guliani? Not hardly! I don't like the looks of the political horizon as concerns the values I hold dear. I'm not giving up, if my backs to the wall, then I don't have to worry about my back. Dale:Fire:

[Black Prince]

I don't know how to make links here so I'll have to post the web address of the information pertaining to the Second Amendment. If you boys have not read this, it is worth the effort.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

[B747]

Carpetman, you continue to reference a piece of legislation that was passed with Democrats in control of the house (243-192) and Senate(62-38) and signed by Lyndon Johnson on October 22 1968, yet it's the Republicans fault it became law and is still on the books? They kept that advantage for the following 12 years as well, with advantages in congress over 100 seats and 30 in the senate. FWIW in the last 50 years (’56-‘06), DEMS held both houses of congress for 32 years, and all three (prez) for 12 years. Republicans held both for 12 years, and all three for 6 years. During years of advantage, DEMS never held as slim a majority in any year that the Republicans did. The only veto proof majorities were held by dems in the early – mid 1960’s.



piwo,

That is an outstanding, consise, well written response.

I have printed your msg out and will be using info from it.

Thanks,
Wally

[waksupi]

Guys, I know we are passionate in our feelings on this topic. We are allowing some leeway, with political discussion to be carried on here. I believe anyone who looks at things together, must agree that both parties have dropped the ball. Let's agree to disagree on our political leanings, and look for a solution, rather than point fingers. Just keep it civil, is all we ask. Maybe we can come up with some course of direction and action.

[Scrounger]

The reasoning powers of people is a constant source of amazement to me. When a movie about Cuba invading the USA came out in the 80's, (Think the title was Amerika) I was astounded when some people called in to a talk radio program to say the movie made them be concerned about the NRA and all those guns. Excuse me! We're the good guys! That's exactly why Cuba would never have invaded the US, the armed citizens would have kicked their butts so fast they would have thought it was the Bay of Pigs in reverse. You would think that the thought of the NRA and guns would be a comforting thought in that context. A populance so indoctrinated to be anti gun is not a rational populance. Thats what is scarey to me. Reason plays no role in so much of this. I do not vote a party line, but at the national level, it is hard to trust a dem., as the party pressure is great enough to sway votes, and there is no denying the anti gun bent of the dems. That said, I don't trust John Mc Cain, He's too chummy with Kerry and Teddy. Birds of a feather rings in my head there, and he seems to willing to test the political winds and turn like a weather vane. Guliani? Not hardly! I don't like the looks of the political horizon as concerns the values I hold dear. I'm not giving up, if my backs to the wall, then I don't have to worry about my back. Dale:Fire:


The movie was 'Red Dawn'.

[leftiye]

PIWO, I commend and applaud your position. More so your attitude. I'm sure somebody said "If you don't aim to win, you'll probably lose." I can't believe how we sit around here and argue about everything and anything! Meanwhile, I don't see anybody putting their shoulder to the wheel and approaching the battlefield. Maybe that's the idea.

Waksupi is right, IT IS ABOUT SOLUTIONS. Not about straightening each other out.

[felix]

Dear God. Please make Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx) President in 2008. Amen.
Back on top. ... felix

[hydraulic]

There is a great deal of confusion about the 2nd Amendment, and the other nine amendments that make up the bill of rights. The 2nd Amendment does NOT grant us the right to keep and bear arms! That right is God given and is the unalienable right of every American. The bill of rights lists those rights that government cannot interfere with. Those ten amendments prohibit the government from INFRINGING on rights we aready have.

[DonH]

hydraulic;

You are exactly right! The Constitution, as drafted, did not provide enough protection from the Federal government and the states would not ratify it without those gaurantees. Hence the Bill of Rights.

I believe in the Second Amendment, make no mistake, and just as it was written. Having said that, here is our greater problem as I see it. For all practical purposes the Constitution in it's entirety is dead. Oue federal government violates the Constitution in just about every way. Congress does not appear to even consider the Constitution before proposing or passing legislation. The Federal court system makes rulings which Congress allows to be consider law even though theCourt has no authority to make law. NO president has done anything to challenge this practice.
We draw a line in the sand when it comes to the 2nd Amendment but not for the 1st when KKK is not allowed the right to assemble or Right-to-Lifers are not allowed within several hundred feet of an abortion clinic. We don't fight about the 4th when it comes to illegal searches and seizures of properties in the name of drug control or because someone decided it could be called a wetland. We don,t fight about it when we are not allowed to use certain words. Above all, we don't fight in defense of the 10th amnedment which says that any thing not stated as being the duty of the Federal government belongs to the States or to the People. We complain but don't do much else when the federal government refuses to fulfill it's most basic duty which is to protect our borders. We complain but don't do much else when illegal aliens are given equal or better protections than natural born citizens.
The Constitution is a contract with the people. It has been so violated for so long and in so many ways that it, for all intents and purposes, is null and void. This is frightening but I don't believe it can be denied and only we, the people, can do anything about it. Maybe we can do something about it through the vote but I'm not sure. When no matter which way we vote we seem to get the same thing, what is left to us? One party does what it wil openly while the other party does nothing out of fear of the first. They WILL decide to take our guns; it is just a matter of when. At that point all we can do is decide whether to obey or not.

[carpetman]

Piwo---I am not saying that the 1968 GCA is the republicans fault and it still being on the books is their fault. I am saying that all the pro republican baloney that they are all for gun owners and all the anti democrat baloney thay they all want your guns---its all baloney. I am saying that if the republicans were the saints that they are made out to be on these forums that with 6 years to do it,the law would be gone. George Bush defeated Ann Richards-democrat for gov of Texas. Ann Richards was more pro gun than George Bush will ever be. She was a quail hunter and never went on a "Guided dove hunt"(what kind of wimp has to be guided hunting doves)and shot a killdeer. Yes it's true both dove and killdeer both fly but all similarity pretty much ends there.
In 2000 when Bush was running he was viewed as a Saint by most in these type forums. He was the gun owners answer. He would answer gun owners letters with "keep your powder dry". He was the real deal. Don't say anything bad about Saint George.I had a different view of him as I did not like the job he did as govenor of the state I lived in. I bring up the 1968 GCA as still being on the books as he has been there 7 years and has done nothing about it. Was he really as good as everyone thought? Would a democrat have been as bad as thought?

[wills]

Piwo---I am not saying that the 1968 GCA is the republicans fault and it still being on the books is their fault. I am saying that all the pro republican baloney that they are all for gun owners and all the anti democrat baloney thay they all want your guns---its all baloney. I am saying that if the republicans were the saints that they are made out to be on these forums that with 6 years to do it,the law would be gone. George Bush defeated Ann Richards-democrat for gov of Texas. Ann Richards was more pro gun than George Bush will ever be. She was a quail hunter and never went on a "Guided dove hunt"(what kind of wimp has to be guided hunting doves)and shot a killdeer. Yes it's true both dove and killdeer both fly but all similarity pretty much ends there.
In 2000 when Bush was running he was viewed as a Saint by most in these type forums. He was the gun owners answer. He would answer gun owners letters with "keep your powder dry". He was the real deal. Don't say anything bad about Saint George.I had a different view of him as I did not like the job he did as govenor of the state I lived in. I bring up the 1968 GCA as still being on the books as he has been there 7 years and has done nothing about it. Was he really as good as everyone thought? Would a democrat have been as bad as thought?

Ann Richards vetoed a statute which would have authorized a referendum (during a regular election – no extra cost to the state) regarding whether or not we wanted the legislature to pass a concealed handgun license statute. She would not even let us express an opinion on the issue. You think she would not have vetoed a CHL law had one come to her desk? George Bush signed the CHL law we now have.

[carpetman]

Wills you are 100% correct the GCA was passed while Bush was Gov. Bush also would not allow a vote on gambling in Texas,yet every border state has it and their parking lots are filled with Texas tags. Texas highways were in the worst shape ever under Bush,guess I'm just not a one issue voter.
Piwo--I did not mean to say I had to have my grandpa and dad tell me how to vote. Mt point was they were both democrats and both avid gun owners. I also dont need the NRA to tell me how to vote. I dont--never have voted straight democratic. I vote for the person--unfortunately in most cases I vote against someone.

[wills]

Wills you are 100% correct the GCA was passed while Bush was Gov. Bush also would not allow a vote on gambling in Texas,yet every border state has it and their parking lots are filled with Texas tags. Texas highways were in the worst shape ever under Bush,guess I'm just not a one issue voter.


Ann Richards nearlyl destroyed the highway department (and the rest of the state agencies as well) and the state was still operating under her appointees during most of the Bush administratioin. Those commissioners are appointed for a set term, I think six years for the highway (transportation) commission and they can continue to run (ruin) an agency long after the governor who appointed them has left office.

[hydraulic]

I went looking for my copy of the Constitution and couldn't find it but I believe it goes like this: "---and to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and when governments become destructive of these rights, it is the duty of the people TO CHANGE THAT GOVERNMENT!"

[robertbank]

You do. By voting . Do you not?

Take Care

Bob

[leftiye]

Robertbank, You need a couple of question marks in that, Do you not????????????????????. I'll send you two or three trash bags full!

[robertbank]

Commas work ...too. Post amended.



Take Care

Bob

[DonH]

We tend to forget that we have not one but TWO founding documents. The first was the Declaration of Independence. As adopted is states that" men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

We in this country allow our government to abuse our rights in ways not so different from Fascist or Communist regimes of the past and rarely do much more than complain. We say (in terms of the 2nd Amendment) how could we do anything about the Federal government with our hunting rifles? Just how good a job have our own or UN troops done in Bosnia of Afgahnistan or Iraq or Somalia or anywhere when those people didn't want to be disarmed? Oh, I forgot, I can't do anything like that. I have to go to work on Monday!!

Bob;
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I am always amazed by the tendency of Canadians to tell us what and how to do it when they have no dog in the fight!

Carpetman;

I might as well stir the pot a little more. Can you explain to me how anyone of principle can support a party which openly in it's platform endorses cutting or liposuctioning living babies oit of the womb? We need to get real and call this kind of stuff what it is. This is Dr. Mengele type stuff and we turn blind eyes as long as we can convince ourselves that the party is really for the little guy and they are going to do something for us.

[NVcurmudgeon]

I know for sure that there are Canadians fighting in Afghanistan. (A Canadian sniper team set a new world's record for longest range kill ever.) It would not surprise me to learn that Canada also has troops in Iraq. On 911, when American airliners could not land, Canada took them in to their airports, and then took the passengers into their homes! Canada's involvement in the War on Terror goes back to at least 1979, when the Canadian embassy staff
issued Canadian passports to Americans who were lucky enough to not be in the seized US embassy. Then the Canadians saw our people safely home. I hope there will always be a Canadian dog in our fights.

We tend to forget that we have not one but TWO founding documents. The first was the Declaration of Independence. As adopted is states that" men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

We in this country allow our government to abuse our rights in ways not so different from Fascist or Communist regimes of the past and rarely do much more than complain. We say (in terms of the 2nd Amendment) how could we do anything about the Federal government with our hunting rifles? Just how good a job have our own or UN troops done in Bosnia of Afgahnistan or Iraq or Somalia or anywhere when those people didn't want to be disarmed? Oh, I forgot, I can't do anything like that. I have to go to work on Monday!!

Bob;
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I am always amazed by the tendency of Canadians to tell us what and how to do it when they have no dog in the fight!

Carpetman;

I might as well stir the pot a little more. Can you explain to me how anyone of principle can support a party which openly in it's platform endorses cutting or liposuctioning living babies oit of the womb? We need to get real and call this kind of stuff what it is. This is Dr. Mengele type stuff and we turn blind eyes as long as we can convince ourselves that the party is really for the little guy and they are going to do something for us.

[carpetman]

DonH--Why do you ask me about abortion and say it's a party thing? 73% Republicans are pro choice.

[Scrounger]

We tend to forget that we have not one but TWO founding documents. The first was the Declaration of Independence. As adopted is states that" men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

We in this country allow our government to abuse our rights in ways not so different from Fascist or Communist regimes of the past and rarely do much more than complain. We say (in terms of the 2nd Amendment) how could we do anything about the Federal government with our hunting rifles? Just how good a job have our own or UN troops done in Bosnia of Afgahnistan or Iraq or Somalia or anywhere when those people didn't want to be disarmed? Oh, I forgot, I can't do anything like that. I have to go to work on Monday!!

Bob;
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I am always amazed by the tendency of Canadians to tell us what and how to do it when they have no dog in the fight!

Carpetman;

I might as well stir the pot a little more. Can you explain to me how anyone of principle can support a party which openly in it's platform endorses cutting or liposuctioning living babies oit of the womb? We need to get real and call this kind of stuff what it is. This is Dr. Mengele type stuff and we turn blind eyes as long as we can convince ourselves that the party is really for the little guy and they are going to do something for us.

Are we now going to expand our approved violation of the 'No Politics' rule into Abortion debate? What next, the Agnostics versus the HolyRollers?
And can DonH explain to me how anyone of principal can endorse ALL of ANY party's policies to the exclusion of all others? The policy of any political party must necessarily be very broad to encompass as many different controversial subjects as possible in order to draw in as many votes as possible and more importantly, as much money as possible. Any one who can't find at least one of his or her party's planks that he or she disagrees with is a rare person indeed or really isn't delving very deeply into it or just isn't very bright. Before you get too excited about me being derogatory to you, re-read my statement. There is a possibility that you are a rare person.
More to the point, I think this thread should be stopped and the rule against political and religious discussion be rigidly enforced or be thrown open to both side (maybe there's more than two sides) of the subjects. I don't think anyone here will start posting Democrat propoganda but if one does, he should have as much right to do so as the Republicans who think St. George and the Republican Party is all good and Holy with malice toward none. A careful reading of CarpetMan's remarks gives me the impression that he is NOT advocating the policies of the Democrats but merely reacting against the constant and undeserved praise of Bush and the Republican Party who would seem to be perfect if one believes everything written here. History will record Clinton and Carter and some of the others as ineffective fools who actually did little to harm the country; I don't think Bush will be so lucky.

[robertbank]

Ignoring those who would suggest that armed rebellion similar to 1776 is a viable option to change governments in 2007 south of our border on the notion it has nothing to do with this country would be like standing in the middle of a stampeding elephants complaining about the weather.

To ignore the power of the ballot over that of the gun is to champion anarchy something both our nations people stand firmly against.

No matter the faults of an elected government they pale in comparison to the alternative.

Take Care

Bob

[DonH]

I am quite sure the founding fathers had pretty much the same concerns in 1776 and before. In fact they were in the minority among the colonists. The statement included in the Declaration was made lightly nor should it be taken lightly. I'm not advocating beginning an armed uprising so noone need come kicking down my door. I do believe in the power of the ballot however when the political machines are so firmly entrenched that whichever we vote we end up with the same thing what good is the ballot?
I am of the opinion that peaceful resistance/civil disobedience would be of more benefit as I'm not talking about revolution. I believe the government defined by our Constitution needs NO change; merely that government officials need to OBEY the Constitution. We need laws to be made ONLY by Congress and not by the Courts or bureaucacies. We need wars to be fought only upon declaration of Congress and not to benefit the UN. (By the way would 14 UN resolutions which your country likely supported be the reason for the Iraq conflict?) We the people have the mess in Washington because WE allow it. The mess will only get worse until we refuse to tolerate it any longer. If we simply refuse to go along, they can't put us all in jail. Shooting us won't happen any more than it did in the Sovit Union in '89. Until we are willing to "pledge our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" to the cause of turning the mess around we will get what we deserve.
The fact remains those of you north of the border have no vote in the matter. You don't want us interfering as we watch your country becoming more socialistic so you might want to keep that in mind.

[DonH]

NVcurmudgeon;
What you say regarding Canada as a neighbor, they still can't VOTE in our elections (YET). The very best neighbors I have still can't come into my house and tell me how to get along with my wife or raise my children any more than I can go to theirs and do it. That is not hostility, just fact.

Carpetman;

I don't know about where you live but those statistics don't hold up where I live. I pay attentioin, not to polls, but to who votes and for what and I know who has originated, supported and/or defended things kike gun control, abortion, pornography, et al. I am Conservative and not just blind Republican. Give me the chance and I will vote for a conseervative Democrat like Zell Miller over a Republican liberal Arlen Specter but I will still have to deal with how I feel about the stance of the party he affiliates with. I believe in living and dying by principles. This not a perfect world and too often I have to hold my nose and vote for what I feel is the lesser of two evils and that sickens me.
I know a lot of good people who are Democrats and are very conservative in their personal lives but are clinging to visions of the party of FDR. It IS NOT that anymore having been taken over by the ultra liberal left.

[dale clawson]

Because I was willing to allow abortion only to save the life of the mother, I became a "pro abortion republican, according to the poll takers. That is an extreme stretch of my position. For that reason, I will never again answer any poll that there is any tolerence whatsoever. Which will be slanted to say I am an extremeist who will not even allow it to save the life of the mother. You can't win regardless. Dale

[robertbank]

What you folks do south of the border is your business to be sure. But when it comes to support of your 2nd Amendment and your gun rights I. and many others up here do what we can, as many of you do south of the border in support of our fight. Participating in newspaper polls, support of organizations such as the NRA and CSSA are but two ways.

All my earlier post suggested was the ballot is the most effective way of changing governments and the actions of governments. It works. Did up here in the last election where you are seeing a very strong movement back to the right of center as it did in the US last November. An earlier post by you suggested otherwise.

Two many American and Canadian lives have been sacrificed to maintain the Ballot option to ever consider turning the methodology over to armed thugs no matter how they are dressed.

Take Care

Bob



Take Care

Bob

[carpetman]

DonH--I have not canvassed the neighborhood,taken polls and had surveys completed so my stats could be off. They came from a google search. Do you have a link that the platform is as you state?

[wills]

I went looking for my copy of the Constitution and couldn't find it but I believe it goes like this:

Pretty easy to find on the internet.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

[DonH]

My apologies to the board for apparently breaking a "no politics" rule. Guess I didn't read enough upon joining. I don't apologize for my stances, just that I was apparently out of bounds. I also may have used less than effective means of trying to make a point that "making deals with the devil" has consequences regardless which side of the fence the "devil" is found on.

BTW, no religiion was included in any of MY posts.

[felix]

DonH, no way could you have a concept of the "devil" without some kind of religious inclination. Your statement sorta' proves you were created and did not evolve from some kind of beast. ... felix