OT-Nugent comments right to bear arms

[Calbear94]

It was part and parcel of my original argument (number 3 on my list of 5 points).

http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... 12#4124312

Disputes among teens used to be settled with fisticuffs, rather than guns. If you are worried about teen gang activity, I suggest you consider my position. How are minors involved in gangs getting their weapons? From gang brothers, family, friends, black market, etc?

I am in favor of increased school security, more armed officers (trained and licensed) and reduced access to guns by teens.

[slucero]

......

For this same reason, the same vague language of the Second Amendment should have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to allow the individual states to pass certain restrictions on gun ownership because gun ownership questions not related to militia service should fall under state authority since it is not directly covered within the Constitution.

.. it appears that states are legislating as they choose... but they are choosing to expand not restrict.

[RedWingFan]

hmmm... weak argument man.....

burglers.... prefer to "burgle" when no one is home... so a burgler who happens upon a occupied dwelling is most likely to bail... so he can burgle another day...

I agree, so why are guns needed in the home for self-defense, especially since extreme measures would be needed in every household to ensure that absolutely no child could get their hand on the family's gun(s)?

I don't know ask Sean Taylor how defending his home with a machete worked out for him.

Let's ask the Colombine families how they feel on this issue? Better yet, let ask the thousands of inner cities families about the disastrous effect that handgun ownership has had on them and their communities?

How did we go from "so why are guns needed in the home for self-defense" to Columbine? I'll tell you how. Because you can't defend your lame initial argument!
Anyway wasn't Columbine a "gunfree" zone? The innocents slaughtered there were armed only with pencils and those 2 losers new it!
How much inner city crime is committed by legal gun owners?????

Apparently in the D.C. area one of 7 guns recovered in a crime were purchased legally by "straw purchasers." Straw purchasers are those who allowed others take possession of their guns. These are only the guns that were recovered. How many were never recovered?

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

[Calbear94]

......

For this same reason, the same vague language of the Second Amendment should have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to allow the individual states to pass certain restrictions on gun ownership because gun ownership questions not related to militia service should fall under state authority since it is not directly covered within the Constitution.

.. it appears that states are legislating as they choose... but they are choosing to expand not restrict.

And this is OK my opinion, although federal laws on trafficking of guns between states would have to increase. By the way, on the map take a look at D.C.. I believe the Supreme Court overstepped in denying the citizens of D.C. to regulate handgun ownership.

[strangegrey]

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

RWF, Don't bother. He didn't successfully defend shit. He barely made his case...and there's really no need for you to try to hammer home a point he can't seem to make a case for.

[Calbear94]

hmmm... weak argument man.....

burglers.... prefer to "burgle" when no one is home... so a burgler who happens upon a occupied dwelling is most likely to bail... so he can burgle another day...

I agree, so why are guns needed in the home for self-defense, especially since extreme measures would be needed in every household to ensure that absolutely no child could get their hand on the family's gun(s)?

I don't know ask Sean Taylor how defending his home with a machete worked out for him.

Let's ask the Colombine families how they feel on this issue? Better yet, let ask the thousands of inner cities families about the disastrous effect that handgun ownership has had on them and their communities?

How did we go from "so why are guns needed in the home for self-defense" to Columbine? I'll tell you how. Because you can't defend your lame initial argument!
Anyway wasn't Columbine a "gunfree" zone? The innocents slaughtered there were armed only with pencils and those 2 losers new it!
How much inner city crime is committed by legal gun owners?????

Apparently in the D.C. area one of 7 guns recovered in a crime were purchased legally by "straw purchasers." Straw purchasers are those who allowed others take possession of their guns. These are only the guns that were recovered. How many were never recovered?

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

I have spent hours building up a historical and Constitutional argument. You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't know how you can say I haven't defended my position, which was clearly stated in my first post. If you really mean that I have not been able to convince you to agree, well then that is true and fine with me. You are entitled to your opinion.

Most straw purchasers are indeed prosecuted when they are discovered. The study linked above provides some statistics on that. Remember, we only are able to trace the ownership of guns recovered. We can't be absolutely certain just how many guns used in crimes were purchased legally. How many guns are disposed of permanently? Still, 1 out of 7 is a scary figure for the residents of DC. If someone promised you that crimes involving guns in your area COULD be reduced by up to 14% would you at least consider it?

[Calbear94]

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

RWF, Don't bother. He didn't successfully defend shit. He barely made his case...and there's really no need for you to try to hammer home a point he can't seem to make a case for.

Interesting...coming from someone who needs a refresher course on American history, particularly the American Revolution.

[RedWingFan]

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

RWF, Don't bother. He didn't successfully defend shit. He barely made his case...and there's really no need for you to try to hammer home a point he can't seem to make a case for.

Interesting...coming from someone who needs a refresher course on American history, particularly the American Revolution.

I just went back and read this thread from the start and I have to say. Frank owned your ass!

[Calbear94]

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

RWF, Don't bother. He didn't successfully defend shit. He barely made his case...and there's really no need for you to try to hammer home a point he can't seem to make a case for.

Interesting...coming from someone who needs a refresher course on American history, particularly the American Revolution.

I just went back and read this thread from the start and I have to say. Frank owned your ass!

Thanks for the debate. I am glad you read what I wrote and participated. I can't say I learned much from Frank, unfortunately, but I did gain some insight into what the pro-gun folks are thinking or not thinking about.

[RedWingFan]

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

RWF, Don't bother. He didn't successfully defend shit. He barely made his case...and there's really no need for you to try to hammer home a point he can't seem to make a case for.

Interesting...coming from someone who needs a refresher course on American history, particularly the American Revolution.

I just went back and read this thread from the start and I have to say. Frank owned your ass!

Thanks for the debate. I am glad you read what I wrote and participated. I can't say I learned much from Frank, unfortunately, but I did gain some insight into what the pro-gun folks are thinking or not thinking about.

Let's use another issue with your #'s for argument. Let's say 86% of all traffic deaths result from drunk drivers many of whom are repeat offenders and the other 14% are legitimate traffic accidents (ie:confusion over who has the right of way, etc.) You're proposing an assault on the 14% rather than the true criminal acts of the drunk drivers.

[Calbear94]

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

RWF, Don't bother. He didn't successfully defend shit. He barely made his case...and there's really no need for you to try to hammer home a point he can't seem to make a case for.

Interesting...coming from someone who needs a refresher course on American history, particularly the American Revolution.

I just went back and read this thread from the start and I have to say. Frank owned your ass!

Thanks for the debate. I am glad you read what I wrote and participated. I can't say I learned much from Frank, unfortunately, but I did gain some insight into what the pro-gun folks are thinking or not thinking about.

Let's use another issue with your #'s for argument. Let's say 86% of all traffic deaths result from drunk drivers many of whom are repeat offenders and the other 14% are legitimate traffic accidents (ie:confusion over who has the right of way, etc.) You're proposing an assault on the 14% rather than the true criminal acts of the drunk drivers.

Oh man....

Alcohol, another tough issue. Interestingly enough, this issue is regulated on a state by state basis. DWI Manslaughter laws are tougher in some states than others. Have all states increased the minimum drinking age to 21 yet? I am not sure. An adult who purchases alcohol for a minor to party with or for another aldult who is too intoxicated at the time to buy is akin to a "straw purchaser" above. I don't know how I would feel about this... My brother became an acoholic at age 13 because a friend of his routinely smuggled beer and liquor from his stepfather (I guess that is why I have no faith in my fellow citizens to keep dangerous stuff lucked up and away from kids). In a way alcohol can be as fatal as guns...maybe it's a proximate cause issue? Maybe guns appear more closely linked to injury and death than alcohol? I guess I would say let the state legislatures continue to try to sort that out.

[Calbear94]

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

RWF, Don't bother. He didn't successfully defend shit. He barely made his case...and there's really no need for you to try to hammer home a point he can't seem to make a case for.

Interesting...coming from someone who needs a refresher course on American history, particularly the American Revolution.

I just went back and read this thread from the start and I have to say. Frank owned your ass!

Thanks for the debate. I am glad you read what I wrote and participated. I can't say I learned much from Frank, unfortunately, but I did gain some insight into what the pro-gun folks are thinking or not thinking about.

Let's use another issue with your #'s for argument. Let's say 86% of all traffic deaths result from drunk drivers many of whom are repeat offenders and the other 14% are legitimate traffic accidents (ie:confusion over who has the right of way, etc.) You're proposing an assault on the 14% rather than the true criminal acts of the drunk drivers.

I forgot to say that regular traffic deaths are treated as involuntary manslaughter, where DUI Manslaughter is almost always considered voluntary manslaughter. The sentences involved would differ in length of incarceration and perhaps the possibility of parole.

[RedWingFan]

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

RWF, Don't bother. He didn't successfully defend shit. He barely made his case...and there's really no need for you to try to hammer home a point he can't seem to make a case for.

Interesting...coming from someone who needs a refresher course on American history, particularly the American Revolution.

I just went back and read this thread from the start and I have to say. Frank owned your ass!

Thanks for the debate. I am glad you read what I wrote and participated. I can't say I learned much from Frank, unfortunately, but I did gain some insight into what the pro-gun folks are thinking or not thinking about.

Let's use another issue with your #'s for argument. Let's say 86% of all traffic deaths result from drunk drivers many of whom are repeat offenders and the other 14% are legitimate traffic accidents (ie:confusion over who has the right of way, etc.) You're proposing an assault on the 14% rather than the true criminal acts of the drunk drivers.

I forgot to say that regular traffic deaths are treated as involuntary manslaughter, where DUI Manslaughter is almost always considered voluntary manslaughter. The sentences involved would differ in length of incarceration and perhaps the possibility of parole.

But would you condone targeting the "14% involuntary manslaughter deaths" rather than the "86% that results from criminal activity"? If you were consistent with the gun issue you would have to say yes.

[RossValoryRocks]

When asserting the second amendment "right to bear arms" let's not forget that the Constitution was <b>meant to be flexible</b> (hence the ability to be amended). This is a good thing indeed.

What exactly does the Supreme Court have to do with "amend"ing anything?
Amendments are done through a process that goes through the people. What the Supreme Court continues to do is going around the people and the Constitution. Your whole argument is based on a falsehood. Nice try though.

The Supreme Court's ruling was based on a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment...that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. What I was, perhaps not so obviously, arguing is that we should not just strictly interpret the Constitution when it suits us individually. The context in which the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has changed dramatically in 200 years. There wouldn't even be a Bill of Rights in the first place if the Constitution had been considered unalterable or inflexible...in short unamendable.

Your whole "interpreting" argument is insulting. The Constitution is not "living and breathing" outside of the amendment process. The fact that the 2nd amendment was upheld based solely on how Justice Kennedy was feeling that particular morning is chilling. The Constitution is what it is. It was declared by our founders for my forefathers, myself and my kids. If you or anyone else has an issue with it. GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS!!!

If you take the Second Amendment verbatim, then it would appear that one would have to be a member of a militia. Surely, not every American today is going to sign up for one year of militia service duty! I believe the founding fathers would be horrified to know how guns are being used today.

We the People..ARE THE MILITIA...we are expected as citizens to be able to defend ourselves and our country if called upon to do so.

Fucking liberals...you just don't get it...EVER...

[Calbear94]

I have defended my arguments. You don't have to agree but don't criticize me for not trying. Gun violence at school was in my initial post. Kids can get into locked drawers and cabinets and are astute in finding parents' hiding places. I am not willing to trust every gun-owning member of my community to keep their guns locked up in a gun safe. All it takes is one child with emotional issues or a score to settle and access to a gun to create a disaster.

1 of 7? Well, whoever these "straw purchasers" are should be also charged with a crime for putting a gun in hands of criminals or not reporting their gun stolen.
So 6 out of 7 are commited by criminals who don't care about gun laws? Interesting they probably don't give a rip about the Supreme Court either do they? But the 1 of 7 care ALOT!!!!

You haven't defended the issue you keep slipping from one scenerio to another after being challenged on it as I've documented above. I know I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. Not anymore.

RWF, Don't bother. He didn't successfully defend shit. He barely made his case...and there's really no need for you to try to hammer home a point he can't seem to make a case for.

Interesting...coming from someone who needs a refresher course on American history, particularly the American Revolution.

I just went back and read this thread from the start and I have to say. Frank owned your ass!

Thanks for the debate. I am glad you read what I wrote and participated. I can't say I learned much from Frank, unfortunately, but I did gain some insight into what the pro-gun folks are thinking or not thinking about.

Let's use another issue with your #'s for argument. Let's say 86% of all traffic deaths result from drunk drivers many of whom are repeat offenders and the other 14% are legitimate traffic accidents (ie:confusion over who has the right of way, etc.) You're proposing an assault on the 14% rather than the true criminal acts of the drunk drivers.

I forgot to say that regular traffic deaths are treated as involuntary manslaughter, where DUI Manslaughter is almost always considered voluntary manslaughter. The sentences involved would differ in length of incarceration and perhaps the possibility of parole.

But would you condone targeting the "14% involuntary manslaughter deaths" rather than the "86% that results from criminal activity"? If you were consistent with the gun issue you would have to say yes.

Well the punishments are already different, and I support this. This analogy is more like a purely accidental firing of your gun versus an intentional (or criminally negligent) firing of your gun that result in a death. The punishments do differ in this case, also.

I think your analogy could go more like this:

to ban alcohol sales to responsible drinkers in an attempt to keep drivers from being able to drive while intoxicated. There are some measures in place to regulate its sale. I guess I am in favor of letting the states decide how "best" to regulate it. This is the same position I took regarding guns, but I think gun trafficking would make state differences almost moot. Most states are not too far apart on the regulation of alcohol and DUI statutes, so I don't think this calls as much for national action.

[Calbear94]

When asserting the second amendment "right to bear arms" let's not forget that the Constitution was <b>meant to be flexible</b> (hence the ability to be amended). This is a good thing indeed.

What exactly does the Supreme Court have to do with "amend"ing anything?
Amendments are done through a process that goes through the people. What the Supreme Court continues to do is going around the people and the Constitution. Your whole argument is based on a falsehood. Nice try though.

The Supreme Court's ruling was based on a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment...that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. What I was, perhaps not so obviously, arguing is that we should not just strictly interpret the Constitution when it suits us individually. The context in which the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has changed dramatically in 200 years. There wouldn't even be a Bill of Rights in the first place if the Constitution had been considered unalterable or inflexible...in short unamendable.

Your whole "interpreting" argument is insulting. The Constitution is not "living and breathing" outside of the amendment process. The fact that the 2nd amendment was upheld based solely on how Justice Kennedy was feeling that particular morning is chilling. The Constitution is what it is. It was declared by our founders for my forefathers, myself and my kids. If you or anyone else has an issue with it. GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS!!!

If you take the Second Amendment verbatim, then it would appear that one would have to be a member of a militia. Surely, not every American today is going to sign up for one year of militia service duty! I believe the founding fathers would be horrified to know how guns are being used today.

We the People..ARE THE MILITIA...we are expected as citizens to be able to defend ourselves and our country if called upon to do so.

Fucking liberals...you just don't get it...EVER...

That's what we have the armed forces for, which is made up of our citizens and whose soldiers are trained and equipped. Today's militia are the state national guards, which are routinely called in the case of state emergencies. What other kind of militia do we need? I would much rather have people interested in joining militias enter the national guards and be trained properly and equipped with modern weapons. When I try to envision a spontaneously-created militia, I think of Washington. Did you know that he had to beat militia members and threaten them with punishment by death just to try to keep the number of disertions in check. It was an utter mess...many were drunken farmers turning out with or without a weapon. Although I am grateful, they won at Lexington & Concord, and slaughtered many British at Bunker Hill (although this battle was technically won by the British), an undisciplined, armed militia force would never have been able to win a long war against the British. As it were, the Continental Army was only able to do so with the monetary and naval support of Holland and France.

Oh, I get it. I just don't see how a colonial type of militia is relevant here in the U.S. in the 21st century. I think it is at the same time both an excuse and perhaps a little paranoia also.

[Calbear94]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

[7 Wishes]

I love Uncle Ted, but mentioning Obama, Clinton, and the Kennedys in the same sentence as Hussein and Hitler is just ignorant and asinine.

[Saint John]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

I think that's awesome. Enter legally or stay the fuck out.

[Calbear94]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

I think that's awesome. Enter legally or stay the fuck out.

You don't think that just a bit extreme?????

[Rick]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

I think that's awesome. Enter legally or stay the fuck out.

You don't think that just a bit extreme?????

There needs to be a better solution for illegal aliens. The current method isn't working, at all. I'm not sure that shooting at them is the answer, but something needs to be done. What's interesting is, a lot of people where I work are retiring in Mexico. If that trend continues, maybe we can all just swap countries.

[Since 78]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

I think that's awesome. Enter legally or stay the fuck out.

You don't think that just a bit extreme?????

There needs to be a better solution for illegal aliens. The current method isn't working, at all. I'm not sure that shooting at them is the answer, but something needs to be done. What's interesting is, a lot of people where I work are retiring in Mexico. If that trend continues, maybe we can all just swap countries.

Frankly, I think we should just make Mexico another state. It would solve a lot of problems.

[Rick]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

I think that's awesome. Enter legally or stay the fuck out.

You don't think that just a bit extreme?????

There needs to be a better solution for illegal aliens. The current method isn't working, at all. I'm not sure that shooting at them is the answer, but something needs to be done. What's interesting is, a lot of people where I work are retiring in Mexico. If that trend continues, maybe we can all just swap countries.

Frankly, I think we should just make Mexico another state. It would solve a lot of problems.

Damn sure would. We wouldn't need a passport to go to Cabo or Cancun.

[Since 78]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

I think that's awesome. Enter legally or stay the fuck out.

You don't think that just a bit extreme?????

There needs to be a better solution for illegal aliens. The current method isn't working, at all. I'm not sure that shooting at them is the answer, but something needs to be done. What's interesting is, a lot of people where I work are retiring in Mexico. If that trend continues, maybe we can all just swap countries.

Frankly, I think we should just make Mexico another state. It would solve a lot of problems.

Damn sure would. We wouldn't need a passport to go to Cabo or Cancun.

Thats what I'm Talkin bout!!!

[Don]

Having a friend from Switzerland, a country with the one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, perhaps we should look at the model they use pertaining to weapons and the militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... witzerland

[AlienC]

When asserting the second amendment "right to bear arms" let's not forget that the Constitution was <b>meant to be flexible</b> (hence the ability to be amended). This is a good thing indeed. If it were not, then African-Americans and women would still be denied basic freedoms. When our forefathers designed the bill of rights, fresh in their experience was a tyranny at the hands of the British. Being fired upon by the British (who were still their countrymen at the time) reminded them of the need to and benefits of "maintaining, a well-regulated militia". I doubt Nugent is a member of the national guard, but this is beside the point .

Far from denegrating the Constitution, it's time to recognize that the Constitution has worked remarkably well. The very Republican experiment that our forefathers worried about, has been a resounding, although far from immediate or perfect, success. We have a strong federal system, with a government based on the will of the people (rule of the majority, anyway). In other words, most of the other protections have worked so well that <b>we no longer need an absolute right to bear arms</b> to protect ourselves from our own government or an invading imperial power.

Sez you.
I'm not convinced.
Ever hear of The Hegelian Dialectic? This is what is used to justify taking rights away, one at a time, so no one gets suspicious.

No thanks, I'm keeping mine, and I'm stocking more ammo, too.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

In other words, most of the other protections have worked so well that <b>we no longer need an absolute right to bear arms</b> to protect ourselves from our own government or an invading imperial power.

Couldn't you make that same argument about the whole bill of rights-

-We dont need freedom of speech , because no one would ever censor free speech.
-We dont need trial by jury, out judges our too good of people to ever be unfair.
-We dont need rules against cruel and unusual punishment , after all we dont float suspected witches in the water, or tear apart people on the rack. We have evolved!
-No and we dont need freedom of religion, no one would ever restrict that. Chip away at bits an pieces here and there (because weve outgrown cetain bits and pieces, but we'd never burn down churches or force people to be Lutherans at gunpoint

In fact we dont need ANY of those protections because Alexander Hamilton was 180 degrees wrong when he pointed out in Federalist no 1 that men were not angels. The breaking news at the start of the 21st century is that we ARE. AND our leaders are always angels 100% of the time. (end sarcasm)

The right to bear arms is in fact the right to defend oneself. This right like the right to speak freeley, to practice religion, or any other unalieble right does NOT come from goverment. Those rights are God given (or if you would rather leave god out of it they are innate, immutable rights.)Incidentally for those of you who look for a religious angle to the idea of the right to bear arms - there is a Judeo Christian precedent backing up the right to defend oneself - in the Old Testament cities of refuge were set up for those who killed out of legitimate self defense.


What doesnt come from Government in the first place. can't be taken away.

[Duncan]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

I think that's awesome. Enter legally or stay the fuck out.

St John - check this game out.

http://www.resist.com/racistgames/playb ... patrol.htm

[Saint John]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

I think that's awesome. Enter legally or stay the fuck out.

St John - check this game out.

http://www.resist.com/racistgames/playb ... patrol.htm

lol..."Violence, Hate, Racism" The filter at work blocked it. I'll check it out when I get home. Sounds like fun!!!

[Duncan]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

I think that's awesome. Enter legally or stay the fuck out.

St John - check this game out.

http://www.resist.com/racistgames/playb ... patrol.htm

lol..."Violence, Hate, Racism" The filter at work blocked it. I'll check it out when I get home. Sounds like fun!!!

Let me know how many wetbacks you shoot!