Where is this from Tom?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
Where is this from Tom?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Declaration of Independence
I had Googled it and had found a modern-day translation. How does it fit with the current discussion?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It looks like a partial quote. I would have thought it wasn't relevant, but the whole quote would probably help decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I am frankly amazed that you can't think of a scenario where our government would become intolerable despotic . I dare say that most of the 2000s the left had a different opinion of the administration. Or was that just hyperbole ? All that talk of abuses of rights that the left claimed were initiated by our response to GWOT .
Geeeze... I'll give you the whole paragraphQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
But the government under Bush wasn't intolerably despotic or tyrannical. The left knew things would swing in their direction, and they did (and they made sure it would). Now the right is scheming to turn things in its direction in 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well you did lose an awful lot of your privacy during those years.Quote:
But the government under Bush wasn't intolerably despotic or tyrannical.
And it hasn't been restored.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello NK:
I thought is was despotic and tyrannical, and I SAID so. And, if Obama was going to DESTROY the 2nd Amendment like Bush destroyed the 4th, and the 5th, I'd be YELLING about that too..Quote:
Well you did lose an awful lot of your privacy during those years.
But, the 4th and the 5th Amendments were, in the real world, ACTUALLY DESTROYED. The notion that Obama is going to take your guns resides ONLY in the heads of right wingers.
Excon
The only way the President will get new laws passed through even the Senate will be if Harry Reid gets his plan to blow up the fillibuster rules. He should tread softly with that idea because eventually the Repubics (or the next party that takes their place ) will have the majority .
On a straight majority vote ,he may not be able to even hold his majority on gun control . There are nine Senate Dems,and “independent” Maine Sen. Angus King,who would vote against at this time. With rule changes Obama may be able to pull off another Stupak Amendment end around to convince some of the suckers... or do some arm twisting... but I doubt it .
Hello again, tom:
It's true. But, he'd like to get a law passed now and then, so he's probably going to blow up the filibuster.Quote:
the only way the President will get new laws passed through even the Senate will be if Harry Reid gets his plan to blow up the filibuster rules.
Otherwise, as you say, they'll BLOCK every piece of legislation that comes down the pike, just like they did last time.
I do agree that it's a drastic move.. But, the Republicans DESERVE it. Moreover, the country deserves a congress that WORKS, and if it takes this to make it WORK, so be it.
Excon
I don't understand why the NRA has such an extreme all or nothing attitude about gun laws, even most gun owners support sensible gun laws. Gun rights groups always mention Switzerland and Israel's high gun ownership, but they leave out the fact that they have sensible laws, you need a licence to buy most types of guns in Switzerland and owning a gun is seen as a privilege with responsibilities to serve your country, not an absolute right.
I hope Harry gives us the two years of breathing space because we need it NOW!
Its about the money, what you think they care about ANY BODY'S rights? Just their right to make money, by any means necessary. Ask the right why they say nothing of the tyranny of capitalism.Quote:
I don't understand why the NRA has such an extreme all or nothing attitude about gun laws,
Come on Tal you know tyranny is when the other side rules, when you are not allowed to exploit, to make profits without limit
Today Show - no rifles used in Newtown shooting. - YouTube
No assault weapon at sandy Hook school. But the pundits used it to enrage the politcians and the public to ban the weapon. More lies again.
All you are saying is greater control of hand guns is needed
Commenter on YouTube (below video) says (in part):
CT State Police posted on Jan 18th.
Seized inside the school:
#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine
#2. Glock 10 mm handgun
#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun
Seized from suspect's car in parking lot:
#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)
But there were no rifles used in the school?
Was the above report a mistake?
This is an old report and it was done in the heat of the moment. 12/15/12Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.yet
Here is another site to clear the matter up. 1/21/13
UPDATE: State Police Confirm Weapons Used in Newtown Shootings Independent Journal Review
Here is yet another debate on the controversy. 1/23/13
Assault Weapon At Sandy Hook Or Not? Coroner Vs MSNBC | Peace . Gold . Liberty
Lets keep things clear so good decisions can be made and not just jump on anything that comes by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
Yes, I believe it was a mistake by the media to rush ahead of the story without gathering facts.
Yes let's put this whole thing down to media hype, just another media beatup, probably didn't happen at all
Since it didn't happen then we can stop talking about it and leave everything how it is. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Now a return to reality.
Senator Feinstein just came out and announced that NO guns will be taken away, but they do want to dry up the supply from here on in, and close loopholes and stop straw purchasers from going from a gun show to another state and selling guns and ammo out of their trunk, and banning imports of some arms by other countries.
And trust but verify through registrations, and background checks, that gun purchasers are the honest citizens they claim to be, and not criminals gaming the system.
Now what's wrong with that?
What does that mean ?Quote:
but they do want to dry up the supply from here on in
Sounds like the greatly successful war on drugs.
I think it means existing stock becomes grandfathered... and new semi-auto guns banned... including the ammo . That way they can keep up the bleating "no one is taking guns away".
Sounds like the voice of reason but there are those who won't make these sort of concessionsQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Dry up the supply? You must be joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
P.S. The vast majority of sellers at gun shows are dealers who would dare not risk pi$$ing off the regulators. Most of the rest of the exhibitors sell t-shirts and hats.
Register with who? National gun registration? No way in my book. Im not opposed to being checked out at the time of purchase but registering guns can be a bad idea. A very bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Truth be told there are also private firearm sellers at almost every gun show I have been to. They are not the ones inside the show. They are not regulated in the same manner. But then again they may also be selling who knows what. Stolen guns or those used in a crime. Its never a good idea unless you know the person your dealing with to make a private sale of gunsQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Also to make a clarification: A straw purchaser is buying with the intention of selling to a person or persons that can not own a gun legally. They are not the ones selling out of a trunk or otherwise walking the lines at gun shows.
Hey, even I don't think selling guns out of a trunk in the parking lot is a good idea. I just think we need to clarify that dealers at a gun show have the same requirements as any other licensed dealer, they have no loophole.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
P.S. Feinstein wants more funding for the ATF to help enforce her new rules. That would be the same ATF that let guns walk to Mexico wouldn't it? No registration, no background check, no fingerprints?
That's the Arizona laws that makes it legal to buy a gun, walk down the street and sell it to someone, without any of those things you mentioned. What part of the Arizona AG refusing to prosecute those folks are you missing.
Lets be clear here if we can. Many states allow for the private sale of a gun. Almost all that do; do not require a background check at the time of sale as it would be using a FFL. That being said all of those states also make it illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to someone who doesn't have the right to own one as defined by law.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So what part of the "sale" upsets you the most? The fact it can be done quickly without verification or that it can be done at all?
For reference here is Arizona gun laws:
Arizona Gun Laws
What part of the ATF allowing high-powered assault weapons to walk to Mexico have you been missing?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I think both Houses of Congress should have an up and down vote on this bill immediately... no amendments .Let's get them all on record . Who supports this and who opposes .
Hello again, tom:
I think they should too. Clearly the country wants the ban. The question is whether politicians will do their jobs, or are they beholden to the special interests.
excon
BOTH. I don't think its right for a drug dealer to give a person cash to buy him a gun.Quote:
So what part of the "sale" upsets you the most? The fact it can be done quickly without verification or that it can be done at all?
Yeah keep believing thatQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
We can have an honest discussion, who's going to start it on your side? Not Rahmbo, who's pressuring banks to stop dealing with gun manufacturers.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Yes, those evil gun manufacturers are in business to "profit from gun violence." And trying to strong-arm the banks to cut their financial ties? Unbelievable.Quote:
Emanuel is sending letters to two major financial institutions, TD Bank and Bank of America, which offer lines of credit to gun makers suggesting that they stop lending money to the manufacturers if they don’t come out for new gun restrictions.
“TD Bank currently aids the gun manufacturing industry through a $60 million revolving line of credit with Smith & Wesson, a gun manufacturer that produces the AR-15 — an assault weapon that was used by James Holmes to kill 12 people and wound 58 in a crowded movie theatre in Aurora,” Emanuel’s missive to TD CEO Bharat Masrani states. “I ask you to use your influence to push this company to find common ground with the vast majority of Americans who support a military weapons and ammunition ban and comprehensive background checks.”
Noting that Chicago’s municipal employees and teachers had already divested money in pension funds from gun makers that are opposing new gun laws, the White House chief of staff-turned-mayor wrote: “Now we need you and other commercial banks to join this fight for safer streets. Collectively we can send a clear and unambiguous message to the entire gun industry that investors will no longer financially support companies that profit from gun violence.”
Read more: Rahm Emanuel presses banks on guns - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com
I understand, you don't care about the lives lost from gun violence in the cities.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:38 AM. |