There's lots invited to the party who would like a shot.
Posted on 04/18/2011 11:22:11 AM PDT by Immerito
How do you arrive at this conclusion?
“First off, I want the Right to Keep and Bear Arms repealed,”
LOL. The stupid just hurts sometimes doesn’t it?
There are some interesting parallels here that deserves some thought.
The issue with guns is that you transfer a deadly bullet to another human being.
The issue with AIDS is that you transfer a deadly virus to another human being.
In the case of guns you, Mr. Barkley, are trying to stop the means of transfer before the damage can be done by banning the ownership of guns.
But in the case of AIDS I would suggest you REFUSE to consider even recommending the stopping of the means of transfer, especially in the most effected communities, through abstinence.
In the case of guns, removing the means of transfer of a deadly bullet also deprives individuals of their unalienable right to defend their own lives and property from others, a right GUARANTEED to them as an individual in the Constitution of the United States of America.
In the case of AIDS, using abstinence to eliminate the means of transfer of a deadly virus removes no such right. And no love is lost either- if you are worried about that - as love is deeper than sex alone and cannot be lost through abstinence under the circumstances the abstinence is itself an act of love.
IN ADDITION: My original question stands. How do you arrive at the conclusion that we shoot too many people in this country?
We are shooting too many people compared to what other deaths and injuries? Compared to how many people we kill by AIDS? Compared to how many people we kill through abortion? Compared to how many people we kill worldwide through the banning of DDT to kill malarial mosquitos? Compared to the growing number of people being poisoned by mercury-filled CFL light bulbs?
Certainly you are not counting acts of law-abiding, self preservation together with criminal acts and murder? Or being so ridiculous as to say that “even one death is too many” as accidents happen even with food and water, and I doubt you would seek to ban those. Well, most of those.
In any event, your very first conclusion is not self-evident. It is merely your opinion.
Please defend it.
Hey troll, if you want to repeal anything in the U. S. Constitution, lets start with the natural citizen part for illegals. I bet you are happy with that one, since all the anchor babies get the freebies we have to work for and will vote for the (d) party. The illegals come here in labor, drop one of their babies and that person is a citizen.
1. We are shooting too many people in this country..
WE (law abiding citizens) are not shooting too many people in this country. People who intend to kill will, no matter what method they use. If you get rid of guns, they'll find something else to use, if they aren't getting their guns off the black market.
The war on drugs didn't get rid of drugs. Prohibition didn't get rid of alcohol. No government regulation will get rid of anything. It will only push it into the black market.
The people who kill with guns often have criminal records and aren't supposed to be owning or having guns already and yet they get them. They don't care if possessing a gun is illegal. That's why they're criminals. So the current gun laws to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them (by liberal reasoning) isn't working out so well now is it?
And even if you pass laws to get rid of guns, how are you going to enforce it? Create another agency to harass legal citizens in violation of the Constitution?
Here's a solution to gun crime.
1) Deport ALL illegals.
2) Enforce the death penalty for murder.
Allow your average citizen to legally defend himself with a fire arm and the criminal element will decline through attrition.
If the criminals realize that they stand a good chance of being shot and killed for robbery and assault, they could possibly think it through and decide that it's not worth the consequences.
Disarming the general populace will only leave them defenseless against and at the mercy of the criminal element who will still get or make guns of their own.
Besides, you will never get all the guns.
Molon labe.
There's lots invited to the party who would like a shot.
Well it is not too often that a politician we are criticizing actually shows up to debate, in rational terms, so thanks for that. Assuming that you are actually trying to pass this amendment, you do realize that any 13 state legislatures, or ratifying conventions, could defeat it. I just do not see 38 states ratifying something like this.
Good talking to you while you are here, please pet the Viking Kitties upon your departure, and IBTZ!
General interest ping.
We have a new signee, the candidate himself.
Ping before the zot.
Hey, words hurt too - can you ban words?
Our guns haven’t gone rogue either!
That’s exactly why he is here and why he responded the way he did.
In a day or two, we’ll be reading the comments elsewhere with the constitutional, founding and historical quotes edited out.
He is a treasonous person to suggest such a thing!
ping a ling to a ding a ling’s idea
5.56mm
That is not a figure of speech, by the way.
I got up one morning (opening day of deer season) and my .308 was bouncing around in the gun cabinet. Does that count?
Just kidding of course.
Good Lord, the guy wants to abolish “right to work” too.... he is definitely a California liberal!
Arms prevent government genocide, it has been shown over and over again. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously wrote:
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests ... people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
This, of course, would have been much more effective with firearms. Do not think Stalinesque purges cannot happen here! No one thought the civilized Germany of the 1930's and 1940's could possibly murder their own.
And to prevent us from becoming weakened, by disarmament, we will fight, by force of arms, to keep our arms.
Then the pograms are much less likely or possible.
Do not doubt our resolve, sir. Do not doubt us.
Be very nice and polite, but let us let him understand.
Yeah, the types who want to come to Texas and mess up our state. Did you see the threads about holder’s people beating up a white person it McNasties?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.