Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it. Just a suggestion.
Let Freedom Ring,
*head explodes*
/bfl
Strict gun laws seldom work. More of these not effective laws will work less.
Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it. Just a suggestion.
Let Freedom Ring,
In 1776, firearms were MORE dangerous, not less, because of the primitive medical treatment available. Any torso wound was generally fatal, after an agonizing period of massive infection. Any limb wound meant an amputation, and a 50-50 chance of survival.
Serious question, please pardon my ignorance: What has the National Enquirer done to erode gun rights? I’m not a reader but a small part of me has admired the Enquirer over the years for not being afraid to tell the truth about certain untouchable politcal figures - e.g. Jesse Jackson, John Edwards, even Bill Clinton.
Take action to encourage Rick Snyder to sign the bill.
Should Snyder Sign Bill Allowing Concealed Weapons in Schools?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2968896/posts
His twitter address.....
https://twitter.com/onetoughnerd
and his contact page.
http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57827-267869—,00.html
I’m willing to compromise. I’m a compromising kind of guy! I’m willing to discuss limits on my firearms if and when the “press” is willing to discuss more liability for those things printed that are not proven to be true. This includes the responsibility to pay for all legal fees for people who challenge…and win…in lawsuits against the “press” for lies and distortions. This includes elimination of the limitations imposed by the definitions of slander and libel. Simple and provable lies, to be determined by a jury, should be punishable in civil court.
You already have your wish. When I was a working journalist, I was taught by the publication's lawyers the requirements for a reporter avoiding defamation suits while printing the truth. (My employers were strict about what is truth -- not as squishy as the MSM's definition.) Facts have to come from three sources, so that the publication can say that they have done due diligence. Why do you think there are so many quotes of other people in most articles? So the words are attributed to another person, not the reporter. Defamation is targeted to the quoted person. Even if the person being quoted is "an anonymous source" -- you can bet the reporter's notes include the name(s) of the people behind the words.
But the topic is so-called "gun control". I won't repeat the refutations regarding existing law, "gun free zones", "mental health", and the gutting of the background check process. We need the same safety preparedness for gun and knife attacks against school children that we have to prevent fire deaths in our schools. Protection plans. Drills. Better alert procedures, so that when one classroom gets attacked the rest of the school can go into lockdown. Automatic alarms to police similar to the "fire pulls" that dot the hallways of our monuments to learning.
One thought: shouldn't any prohibition against certain types of weapons, intended for the battlefield, extend to all non-military personnel? How consistent are the gun-grabbers?
Uh, not quite. That would be flinklock muskets, percussion guns (cap and ball) came much later.
The Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was added, gave Congress the power to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private individuals to make war against foreign nations. Generally these was given to ship owners to become privateers. That implies that the authors of the Constitution expected that those private individuals already owned the 18th century weapon of mass destruction, the cannon.
Sadly, facts to libs are irrelevant.
Your point has been made by many. It's a very good, relevant and important point. It's logical.
The irony is that the abuse of the 1st Amendment is causing the problem (confusion) about the 2nd. There is a multitude of documentation that explains the intent of both of these amendments by our founders. They wrote letters and articles about both. The entire Bill of Rights was specifically included in the Constitution so it could be ratified. Specifically, states wanted more specific limits placed on the Fed. They did this by stating what specific rights of the individual could not be infringed and what laws could not be passed that would even “INFRINGE” on those rights. The use of the word “infringe” was brilliant. Technically, any law that put restrictions or added requirement on ANY “Arms” conflicts with the 2A.
Ammo restrictions and laws are in our future. They will go after manufactures not the citizens.
Consequently, we have violated the 1A with campaign McCain Finegold, the Fairness Doctrine, etc.
It is important to remind citizens of the even broader Constitutional debate as often as possible. The original debate concerning a constitution was whether or not a Federal Govt. was even necessary. The next debate was how to keep the Fed. small (limited) so that the people and states would retain the majority of power. The original govt design was intended to create gridlock and make passage of laws very difficult. This was suppose to filter out the trivial stuff and keep them focused on actual important issues (like slavery, treaties, currency, interstate commerce, etc.). The SC was there to remind legislatures that if they wanted changes to the constitution, amendments were necessary.
Along with a multitude of other cases the SC screwed up, Roe V. Wade should have been rejected, not even heard by the SC. They should have rejected the premise of privacy and told legislatures, “There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. But there is something in the constitution about the pursuit of life. As such, this court has nothing to rule on. Until such time as the people of the United States ratify an amendment to the Constitution taking a position on the legality of abortion, this court cannot make a ruling and the states shall retain the right to pass laws as their citizens will determine.
As much as I hate to admit it, Marriage is not defined in the constitution either. The SC should not hear any cases based on laws that states pass concerning the subject. It's a marriage issue, not a freedom issue. Any two people, animals or things can have a ceremony announcing to the world that people or things are “married”. The States should be left to define the relevant recognition or benefits of said establishment. Like it or not, I have to be consistent.
“That the framers couldn’t have anticipated the complex military weaponry available to the masses in this modern era. It’s a good point and deserves some consideration.”
Other ‘complex’ items the framers did not anticipate:
1) The internet
2) Satellites
3) The automobile
4) The assembly line
5) advancing medical methods
All items that made our lives much easier yet still come with some risks. Yet, we accept these risks as liberty abiding people.
Interesting. We could all call for “a balanced approach” to mass murder. We’ll give up some of our second amendment rights, right after you give up your first amendment rights to a free press.
That’ll make their heads explode....
We are already seeing under Obama our Constitutional checks and balances and limited federal government being dismantled. Obama at will bypasses Congress ruling by decree with executive orders, the courts have replaced Congress and elected legislatures and unchecked executive agencies have assumed the power of an elected Congress. What stands in the way of total takeover is the fact that tens of millions of citizens are armed and many could be expected to take up those arms in rebellion if basic freedoms are usurped.
After this statement everything you say that follows is suspect. There is only one supreme court justice that is an originalist and the is supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.
It is not a living document.
It is dead.
My son who is an Army Special Forces Officer reminded me that Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. How is that working?
It's also time to turn the tables on Hollywood and the music industry. Since a LOT of our liberal indoctrinated youth are already stealing from them without remorse, we can use their ideology against them. Hollywood and the music industry, after all, ARE made up of one percenters. We need to rail on and on about the wealth in both industries, and how they need to be taxed more.
We also need to use their socialist ideology to break them. NO 0bama voters understand intellectual property rights. We can use that in a "Free the entertainment from the greedy Hollywood one percenters" campaign. Why should they benefit at our expense from digital entertainments that are essentially "free" to distribute over the internet?
Feel free to add your own ideas to this campaign. We need to hammer this from now until the end of the millenium, or until Hollywood gives in. I'll take the first option, personally.
I believe in property rights as much as anyone, way more than most, but in the case of Hollywood and the music industry, I'm willing to suspend my belief. It's for the children, after all.