[talaniman]

I was being sarcastic, but gun owners don't allow for change, any change, that goes against their right to bear arms, as many as they want, whatever kind they want. And just to correct you, while Americans can be stupid, and do stupid things, was your relative stupid, or a Canadian, oh I know he was American right?

When the libs took over the schools and decided to experiment with our school children then all good sense went out the window. They used to teach those things in school and if you did bring a gun you most likely were involved with R.O.T.C. program. (introduction to military). Gun education and hunter education was taught to all children to respect a gun. Its not happening anymore but sorely needs to be.

Guns are banned in every high school in America from what I understand and ROTC goes to reserve bases and shooting ranges to learn about guns. That's not a liberal thang, its public safety. What you teach your kids at home is your thing to do. No telling what they teach kids in the isolated rural backwoods. I thought you were from the city? Hard to believe they actually have an armory at the high schools around you. Or could you be way older than I thought?

[cdad]

I was being sarcastic, but gun owners don't allow for change, any change, that goes against their right to bear arms, as many as they want, whatever kind they want. And just to correct you, while Americans can be stupid, and do stupid things, was your relative stupid, or a Canadian, oh I know he was American right?



Guns are banned in every high school in America from what I understand and ROTC goes to reserve bases and shooting ranges to learn about guns. Thats not a liberal thang, its public safety. What you teach your kids at home is your thing to do. No telling what they teach kids in the isolated rural backwoods. I thought you were from the city? Hard to believe they actually have an armory at the high schools around you. Or could you be way older than I thought?

Im sure Im way older then you thought :)

Back when I was in school the big experiment at the time was the Evelyn Wood speed reading program. It was mandatory to take it back then. It's the hunters safety classes that have been dropping off from the schools and that was one where you didn't have to handle a weapon but at least you gained knowlage in the ways to respect a gun. Responsible gun owners do accept some changes and the fully automatic weapons available to the general public are very expensive as it takes a class 3 ffl to get one and you have to apply for one before you can purchase which will include signing off by your local police chief before it goes off to the ATF for approval for your tax stamp. Very expensive.

[paraclete]

No telling what they teach kids in the isolated rural backwoods. I thought you were from the city? Hard to believe they actually have an armory at the high schools around you. Or could you be way older than I thought?

I live in the mountains in a university town, hardly the back woods although I did pioneer a rural property some years ago. I could be older than you thought.

I was part of a military cadet unit in high school and, yes, they had an armory complete with rifles, mortars, machine guns and their own small bore firing range right in the middle of a city. Ammunition was, of course, in short supply. You don't teach kids rifle drill without using the real thing. Those were different days when every youth could expect to spend some time in the military. I hear they even let girls into these units now.

In our "backwoods" kids are taught about guns at an early age and taught to respect them after all you never know when that snake might need dealing with, and you don't want to blow your own foot off, but the days of hunting with a rifle whenever you feel like it are gone. Just not the done thing to walk to the edge of town with a gun in your hand any more. No licence, no gun, no discharging a firearm within a certain distance of any dwelling

[tomder55]

Hello again, dad:

You're not playing the small government card, are you??? Nahhh. You wouldn't... That's because you don't mind a LARGE HUMONGOUS, very intrusive government, as long as it meets YOUR particular social agenda...

To wit: since the recent Republican takeover of the states, instead of working on JOBS, they enacted some of the most restrictive abortion laws since Roe v Wade... I'll bet you're just FINE with that, aren't you?

So, while you decry the government in your HOME, you absolutely WANT government in the doctors office making SURE that what happens is what the GOVERNMENT wants to happen...

Let's talk about that for a minute.

excon

One is to protect a plain language Constitutional right going back to the founding .(the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed) The other is a fabricated right ,hewn from the mangling of the English language ,by an activists court ,for someone to snuff out the life of a baby .(The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
[Griswold v. Connecticut] )

[paraclete]

You see here Tom you have the ultimate dilemma. A sacrosanct document which confers certain rights and a State which wishes to curb the citizens exubrant use of them. You have abbreviated the amendment and so taken it out of context.

A

well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Romans had a way around the problem they confired citizenship on few. The question is does your constitution confer these rights only on citizens and who are those citizens. You behave over there as if these rights exist for all residents or all people. If so the confiscation of arms by your troops in Iraq or Afghanistan would be illegal, so avoid a literal reading to uphold your situational ethics. The context is obviously speaking of responsible citizens and of an organised militia or military force which is spoken of in other parts of the constitution. The legislators of the day contemplated a situation as exists in Switzerland today but has long passed in the US. The problem with these amendments is they have not been slotted into the appropriate passage so as to be read in context.

The words well regulated are forgotten when referring to these rights and yet they are just as important as the word infringed

[tomder55]

We don't have to go so far back to Romans. All we have to do is understand "militia " the way the founders did. "Well regulated" was simply one that was "well equipped" and organized.It had nothing to do with the concept of a state organized standing army or reserves. It was independent of the state.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress

"that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."

(Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #29)

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

George Mason

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic... ”

Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

George Washington

[paraclete]

I think Washington's statement is the most profound, He talks of a status of independence. Taken to it's ultimate extreme that's anarchy, which it seems to me exists in some parts of your land. Did he contemplate every citizen maintaining his independence from every other citizen or every citizen being able to assist a fledgling nation maintain its independence from cohersive forces. Washington contemplated an internal insurrection, he knew well the nature of those around him, and yet the very constitution we are discussing gives government the right to use the militia to put down such an insurrection.

Irrespective, the right to bear arms exists in the context of military action but taken to excess it is an invitation to anarchy.

[speechlesstx]

I think Washington's statement is the most profound, He talks of a status of independence. Taken to it's ultimate extreme that's anarchy.

Don't be ridiculous, we're not anarchists, Clete. The rights and freedoms guaranteed by our constitution are ties that bind, and we will stand together against our own government if they attempt to abuse those rights. That's not anarchy.

[excon]

Hello again,

In reference to outrage number #2 above, Jim Risen, a NY Times reporter, is being FORCED by Obama to reveal his sources because they don't like a story he did during the Bush years... That's because Obama wants to instill a CLIMATE of FEAR among journalists and whilstelblowers that they better CLAM up...

While others rant on about Obama and babies, YOUR rights are disappearing... Obama is Bush on STEROIDS!

excon

[speechlesstx]

While others rant on about Obama and babies, YOUR rights are disappearing... Obama is Bush on STEROIDS!

Dude, we've discussed Obama's assault on our rights many times. The baby thread was meant to satisfy another user here.

[excon]

Hello again,

Referring to outrage number #3 above, let me ask you about this...

You know that 5 hour energy drink?? You know, the one where the girl holds up a bottle and declares, "it makes me a BETTER me"...

What is the difference between THAT drug and say, Dexedrine?? Isn't a "better me" just another way of saying "I'm high"??

excon

[speechlesstx]

I don't know about you, but when I did amphetamines I was high. When I take vitamins and caffeine I'm just awake.

[speechlesstx]

Just thought you'd like to know that wiretaps were up 34% in 2010, with California, New York and New Jersey leading the way. Interesting also how much federal wiretaps have risen since 2008:



As Glenn Reynolds says, they told me if I voted for John McCain, Big Brother would be snooping more and more — and they were right!

[NeedKarma]

So you must be happy then?

[excon]

Interesting also how much federal wiretaps have risen since 2008

Hello again, Steve:

Not interesting to me. Obama is Bush on STEROIDS!! I think I've said that before...

By the way, do you remember early on, when he said that he wasn't going to let the DEA bust medical marijuana clinics in those states where it was approved... Uhhh, that was a LIE, too. Obama is Bush on STEROIDS!

excon

[speechlesstx]

So you must be happy then?

How would my reporting this news equal me being happy about it?

[excon]

How would my reporting this news equal me being happy about it?

Hello again, Steve:

Are you telling us that the surveillance state ISN'T something the right wing adores? Well, IF you are, we AIN'T buying.

excon

[NeedKarma]

How would my reporting this news equal me being happy about it?

Because it stops terrorism.

[speechlesstx]

Are you telling us that the surveillance state ISN'T something the right wing adores?? Well, IF you are, we AIN'T buying.

Why would we adore a "surveillance state?" For a change, why not be honest with people here about the things we have said and the positions we've taken instead of leading others to believe things never said or even implied?

[speechlesstx]

Because it stops terrorism.

Try not to assume so much.

Terrorism wasn't even among the reasons listed for wiretaps. 84 percent (2,675) of those wiretaps "cited illegal drugs as the most serious offense under investigation," followed by homicide at 5 percent and racketeering at less than 4 percent.