Obama: "After the midterm elections, my advisers asked me, 'Mr. President, do you have a bucket list? Well, I have something that rhymes with bucket list ..."
===
As I've said before - fasten your seat belt. Obama has show a propensity to create policies that violate the law and ignore laws he doesn't like. I'll have to look at semo's "Obama clock" to see how many days, hours, minutes and seconds we have left with this Acorn attorney.
It's going to be a rough year!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 8:28 AM
yeah, yeah, yeah....u don't even know whats really going on. listen fool, he is the president for another year...deal with it and stop whinning
-- Posted by Cadillac on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 8:35 AM
The vocal minority is going to keep hammering at it until we get these a Leftists out of office, which is a big order given they are buying an ever increasing number of voters with our tax dollars.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 8:36 AM
Yeah Caddy, we have another year of incompetence in the White House. If we can put someone in there with a brain you may lose some of your freebies. You may even end up driving a used Ford.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 8:40 AM
The party is almost over for all the blood sucking freeloaders. Better start looking for a job, call Pres. Pinky and ask him for one before he's gone.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 9:21 AM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 9:31 AM
Theorist: You might want to refer to a particular comment with your post or is it a blanket comment meant for everyone.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 9:44 AM
What are you afraid of? -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 9:31 AM
Cars - they kill more people every year than guns. Ban 'em!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 9:45 AM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 11:34 AM
What is more background checks going to do? Most of the shootings and crimes are committed by those who have guns and NO background checks.
I have stated before that if you want a gun (unfortunately} you can get one easily these days without ANY background check.
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 11:52 AM
"Why are you afraid? What could possible scare you here unless you think you will be caught in a universal background check?"
Because it will run up the cost of used firearms, since the background checks are not free.
Gun Shows are often places to pick up cheap firearms and parts for firearms. Some of the parts fall into the "gun" category, requiring a background check. Why should one have to pay a $25 background check fee to buy a $10 part?
As I've said, money is no object, if it ain't your money.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 12:05 PM
Why are you afraid? Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 11:34 AM
I am not "afraid", but this is an infringement of our rights. The right to bear arms is being spit on. You want more background checks for people who want to purchase a firearm, but think requiring a picture ID to vote is wrong?
-- Posted by motrans on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 12:38 PM
The subject of the thread, Semo...(sigh).
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 11:34 AM
Theorist: Thanks for clearing up your comment. BTW, keep your (sigh) to yourself.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 12:46 PM
IMO, the only ones afraid of guns are the PC Liberal Democrats who try to convey their fears to the whole populace.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 12:59 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 11:59 AM
Sometimes I wonder where you pull this stuff from. What is it about "you don't need a background check to get a gun" that you don't understand?
So what do you do when they seem fine and they pass the background check then get PO'D and kill someone? You can't have psychiatric exam of everyone who wants a gun. Where would you get the money, time, resources, etc... ?
-- Posted by Iamhere on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 1:28 PM
IMO, we need to support the police and get the crooks and thugs off the streets and into jail for all of their crimes that they have committed. Gun control only and I repeat only is for the honest Americans and not for those who can get their guns from the black market which is nearly everywhere in the world.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 1:56 PM
Gangbangers who do the drive-by shootings and other such activities do not buy guns, they steal them. No background check is going to catch the ones doing the acts.
-- Posted by motrans on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 2:04 PM
How will this effect you?
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 9:31 AM
I might ask you.... how will it benefit you?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 3:00 PM
Sadly, current safety laws are not being enforced. For example, the Kelly student that is dead because an irresponsible grandpa loaned his vehicle to a 16 year old with two loaded guns inside. Now the same student had a gun on school property and bragged during a verbal altercation.
We hear of other reckless gun storage being excused as "tragic accidents" far too often.
Hold gun owners responsible for safe storage and use of their fire arms.
-- Posted by scheuwlfz on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 6:09 PM
It will save lives...
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 11:59 AM
Pure supposition, you have zero proof of that.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 6:38 PM
Why are you afraid? What could possible scare you here unless you think you will be caught in a universal background check?
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 11:34 AM
I am not afraid Theorist, but I am concerned where your gang is going with this. In spite of our Constitutional rights, I firmly believe you are after the guns of law abiding citizens and will not rest until that is accomplished.
I will do my part to see that you fail!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 6:47 PM
Why are you afraid? What could possible scare you here unless you think you will be caught in a universal background check?
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 11:34 AM
I am not afraid Theorist, but I am concerned where your gang is going with this. In spite of our Constitutional rights, I firmly believe you are after the guns of law abiding citizens and will not rest until that is accomplished.
I will do my part to see that you fail!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 6:47 PM
It is what I can do for my country! :) (Not what my country can do for me...)
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 6:48 PM
Gutting the Constitution illegally is not doing anything for your country.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 6:53 PM
I am not impressed with your biased studies Theorist.
Your bloated big government cannot effectively enforce the current laws on the books. They have failed and admitted they have failed doing current background checks.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 6:59 PM
Out for a couple of hours, have some driving to do.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 7:01 PM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 6:54 PM
Theorist: When someone is breaking into your home and you called 911, you can throw your books with these gun control articles at him while waiting for the police to show up.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 7:07 PM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 7:44 PM
Sweetie: I thank you for your compliments.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 8:03 PM
Out for a couple of hours, have some driving to do.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 7:01 PM
Theorist, Now you have a real threat scarier than Wheels with a gun to worry about. Now he's driving after dark without any recent testing or recertification! Oh, the humanity at stake. If we don't hear from you in a while, I think most will understand you are on other social networks warning those you care about.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 8:30 PM
Theorist, I didn't think of that. Maybe he's driving some cattle to the pond before it freezes over. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 9:26 PM
Old John
Been at the farm, made it home and didn't kill or maim anybody with my car or my gun.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 9:29 PM
"You didn't read any, and can't admit you are wrong...proof is in the reading!"
Theorist
For once you are correct, I did not read the articles. I do not read articles by people with a "cause".
Then you slip back into being wrong again.... there is no proof in reading those kinds of articles unless you are looking for approval for your own agenda. It matters not what these people write, the second ammendment is clear enough for a 5th grade student to understand.
So exactly where do you think that I am wrong? If it has anything to do with your lack of proof.... forget it, a study is proof of nothing.
If your gang had a sincere interest in fixing the problem they would go after the cause of the problem, not the tool used.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 9:41 PM
Your "own agenda" is keeping you from realizing the truth. Who are you hurting here?
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 8:28 AM
My agenda is to run this country lawfully and to quit infringing upon people's freedoms.... not the way some lunatic fringe group thinks it should be at any given time.
I repeat, attack the cause, not the tool.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 8:39 AM
Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 8:28 AM
Theorist: Believe your "own agenda" is keeping you from realizing the truth. Who are you hurting here and what rights do you and the gun control nuts are willing to give up. Have a nice day, remember to keep your doors locked and keep those books handy in case an intruder trys to break in.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 8:42 AM
Another thing Theorist, studies can be and will be slanted to get the result desired. Do you ever read studies with opposing viewpoints to you own.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 8:45 AM
I can find a lot of opinionated fluff though....
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 1:13 PM
Of couse you can.... then you post it as support for your opinionated position.
Theorist, why do you Leftists hate our Constitution and feel so compelled to restrict the Liberties guaranteed to us by our founders?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 1:30 PM
I can only answer for myself...I don't hate the constitution at all...it is an amazing "living" document that did not foresee your twisted take on it...:)
Theorist the Constitution is only a "living" document in that it can be changed only in a prescribed manner outlined by the Constitution. You should know, the ammendment procedure, which must be ratified by the states. Not by a self appointeded group of self ordained do gooders at their whim. A "Living" document as you appear to see it, it is not.
The Leftists whom you side with have the removal of guns from America as a goal and it is not in keeping with our Constitution.
Your roads example is not related to this issue. Where in the Constution do you find roads and our rights not being infringed upon by requirement to follow rules?
The Constitution does say that the right to bear arms shall not be infinged....
What part of that statement can you not understand? Nothing in it says anything about a person's sanity one way or the other.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 2:14 PM
Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 1:52 PM
Theorist: If you are a blood sucking freeloader, you can not vote for the Democratic nominee for Predident due to safety issues.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 2:32 PM
Should be President.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 2:42 PM
"If I have to drive on the right side of the road, my rights have been infringed...I may want to drive right down the middle, but I cannot because that is a safety issue. Do you agree?"
No. Where do you get the idea that driving is a right? It is a freedom, which is not the same thing.
On your own property, you have the freedom to drive wherever and however you wish, but you assume the risk for doing so. When you drive upon the property of others, including property held in common with the rest of the citizens of the country, you are obligated to follow the rules of the road established by the owners.
It is not an infringement of a "right" because no such right exists.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 3:32 PM
From this link: First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws. (2003, September 29).
"Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases."
"Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases. One study indicated a statistically significant reduction in the rate of suicide by firearms among persons aged >55 years; however, the reduction in suicide by all methods was not statistically significant. Furthermore, this benefit appears to have been a consequence of the waiting period imposed by the interim Brady Law (which has since been dropped in the permanent law) rather than of the law's restrictions on the basis of the purchaser's characteristics ."
"Waiting periods for firearm acquisition...Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase. As noted previously, one study of the interim Brady Law indicated a statistically significant reduction in firearms suicide among persons aged >55 years associated with the waiting period requirement of the interim law. Several studies suggested a partial "substitution effect" for suicide (i.e., decreases in firearms suicide are accompanied by smaller increases in suicide by other means)."
"Firearm registration and licensing of owners... Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent. "
"Shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws...Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes."
"Child access prevention laws...Overall, too few studies of CAP law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent. In addition, although CAP laws address juveniles as perpetrators of firearms violence, available studies assessed only juvenile victims of firearms violence."
"Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools...The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that "street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students."
"Combinations of firearms laws...On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement.
"In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."
Your own link hardly supports your position.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 3:42 PM
Theorist,what exactly as an end game will make you and all other anti gun people make you happy?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 9:07 PM
Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 9:07 PM
Rock: Good question.
All the honest folks to give all of our guns to the government to melt down and then only the crooks and thugs as well as those in government only will have guns; we will all then be "slaves" to them.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 9:20 PM
"The Constitution does say that the right to bear arms shall not be infinged..."
uh, no it doesn't...
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 9:03 PM
OK Theorist, a technicality, the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution, amounts to the same thing, it guarantees our "right" to own firearms without the meddling of people like you. Or can you show me an ammendment negating the 2nd ammendment.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 10:14 PM
Wheels, Be nice, it sounds like holiday stress has set in early for Theorist this year, makes it hard for her to think clearly.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 10:58 PM
Old John
If we are nice, it will only be a matter of time before these Socialists/Leftists will require you and me to greet one another with Good Morning Commrade and Good Evening Commrade.
I prefer things as they are, so if I am dealt with by someone with a nasty attitude, I will reciprocate.
Theorist hasn't thought clearly since I have been posting and that has been quite a while now.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 11:34 PM
"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."
Oh, yes it does.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 12:10 AM
Members of the VFW refer to each other as comrade. Educate yourself Wheels. Stop your ready, fire, aim strategy.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 9:20 AM
You hit the horse first. The fact the amendment says we need a militia does not alter the fact it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You have yet to show how the latter is negated by the former.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 10:28 AM
"Read the others, read the recent ones...."
You provided no links. I have to Google eaach one to read them, which takes time. The first one I Googled says all the research is inconclusive. The study calls for more studies, but you cited it to call for more laws. It does not support that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 10:32 AM
"Think about when the Nation was developing, and the Constitution was drafted...."
I think about it all the time. You seem to believe the world is more civilized and governments are more trustworthy then than now. I say there is no evidence to support that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 10:35 AM
Sorry, meant to say "now than then".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 10:35 AM
And a Happy Thanksgiving to all!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 10:36 AM
Yes.... Happy Thanksgiving to all!
I will wait until tomorrow to explain to Theorist for the third time what the correct procedures are for altering the Constitution.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 10:42 AM
"You have yet to show how the latter is negated by the former."
Not negated, but it is modified.
The authors of the 2nd Amendment could easily have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It appears that this is how some today choose to read it, so why was that "militia" phrase inserted at all?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:48 AM
It appears that this is how some today choose to read it, so why was that "militia" phrase inserted at all?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:48 AM
It seems to be pretty simple to most of us including the Supreme Court. I cannot understand why those like you and Theorist have such a problem with it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:55 AM
So you don't have any idea why it's there, that seems pretty obvious.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:21 AM
The authors of the 2nd Amendment could easily have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:48 AM
Yeah, sure. And instead of writing "four score and seven years ago" Abraham Lincoln could have written "87 years ago".
But he didn't. And it wouldn't have mattered.
Try again...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:25 AM
So you don't have any idea why it's there, that seems pretty obvious.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:21 AM
Yes Commie, I know why it is there, it appears you are the party with the lack of knowledge or understanding.
I get a little sick and tired of the, well this is what they said, but this is what they meant folks.
The Constitution and it's Ammendments are NOT 'living' documents that fringe lunatic groups can change at their own whims.
There is a procedure to change the Constitution, it is by Ammendment, read up on it and if you don't like it, see if you can change it. A hint for you, there may be a majority opposing you.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM
"I know why it is there..."
- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM
So it would seem that you know why it is there, but are for some reason unable to put that "reason" into words.
While you're waiting for SH to bail you out, try looking at the actual Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 10:42 AM
While you're waiting for SH to bail you out, try looking at the actual Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 10:42 AM
I haven't seen any sources. Just your ranting without a single link. I feel sorry for you.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 10:48 AM
My mistake, I gave you credit for knowing what the Constitution is and how to access it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 11:18 AM
I gave you credit for knowing what the Constitution is and how to access it. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 11:18 AM
Just demonstrating your hypocrisy and forcing you to play by your own rules.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 11:20 AM
"It appears that this is how some today choose to read it, so why was that "militia" phrase inserted at all?"
It doesn't modify it, it justifies it. And it is just as important to have a militia today as it was two hundred years ago, and to have that militia capable of defending against oppression and suppression just as readily as it is to defend against insurrection, rebellion, and invasion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 12:43 PM
Apparently, some people believe neither oppression nor insurrection are possible in today's world. Such people are called "fools".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 12:45 PM
"...believe neither oppression nor insurrection are possible in today's world."
Guess we're safe unless Trump gets elected.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 1:19 PM
"... to have a militia today as it was two hundred years ago..."
That's somewhat questionable, as there's no longer the need for citizens to rush to the local fort to defend it from marauding "savages," but, nevertheless, that's what the National Guard does...
That seems to comply with the Constitution in that Congress is given the power to...
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..."
That seems to imply that Congress is to supply the "arms" to the Militia, thereby relieving individual citizens from providing privately owned arms. It's also interesting that the 2nd Amendment refers to "bearing arms" not owning arms.
(I'm sure that you don't need to be provided a link to the Constitution as Duggie did.)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 4:30 PM
Apparently, despite your military background, you are unaware that there are two components to the militia; the organized (National Guard) and the unorganized (the rest of us). I pointed this out before, with link.
In the event of invasion or insurrection, There may not be time to call up the Guard, and it may fall upon the shoulders of those "angry white men" to form the first line of defense. The founders understood this. Sadly, too many have forgotten the lessons of History.
Since the Congress has not seen fit to provide the rest of us with wrapons, and the Supreme Court has stated that, when called to duty, we are expected to arrive, bearing our own weapons, of the type in general use at the time (U.S. vs. Miller), I expect that right "of the people" to continue to be preserved for we, the people.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 5:05 PM
Funny how this has been argued for a couple of hundred years and the Bollinger Bombastic Blowhard still can't figure it out.
BTW-bear,to possess.To possess,own. Geez,no dictionaries out in the sticks?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 5:19 PM
One of the reasons for the right to bear arms is to allow defense of the states [states generally refers to people] against federal tyranny.
The founders knew a well armed citizenry would be a deterrent to central government disregard to the rule of law that depends on men of honor.
Knowing the nature of men they also knew men of honor are corruptible.
Today we see that idea of corruptible men that allow rule by administrative law made up of unelected people with power not granted by the people for the people.
No matter how you qualify it, the founders recognized bearing arms as a right and one thing in front of all aspects of the constitution is the recognition that rights are not the governments to give or take away.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 6:00 PM
"I know why it is there..."
- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM
So it would seem that you know why it is there, but are for some reason unable to put that "reason" into words.
While you're waiting for SH to bail you out, try looking at the actual Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.i
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 10:42 AM
Common,
Why do you think it is my job to train your dumb hind end.
Article 1 Section 8 spells out the right of the government to call out the militia.
I have no idea how you think you are making an argument there. Amendment 2 is making sure the "militia" is armed and ready to go. Below find the definition of a "militia" since it appears you do not have a clue.
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
1.a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 6:52 PM
That's somewhat questionable, as there's no longer the need for citizens to rush to the local fort to defend it from marauding "savages," but, nevertheless, that's what the National Guard does...-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 4:30 PM
I haven't seen any sources. Just your ranting without a single link. I feel sorry for you.
Links? Sources?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 7:06 PM
"Why do you think it is my job..."
"I have no idea how you think you are making an argument there."
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 6:52 PM
Your job? It's not, you don't have the intelligence to do anything of the sort. All I've done is to reveal that you have no concept of what you're talking about.
Your having no idea is the only accurate part of your "contribution." Don't bother thanking me as I have no objection to training you, as long as you don't abuse the benefit.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:06 PM
-- Posted by rocknroll on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:13 PM
Sounds like common has no logical reply.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:15 PM
"To possess,own. Geez,no dictionaries out in the sticks?'
Maybe if you used it in a sentence... I "bear" this truck. The poltergeist "beared" the innocent conservative.
Are you taking advice Mr. Big Wheel on definitions?
Do you believe that the white hunter's gun "bearer" was the guy that actually owned the gun?
To bear: to carry or hold something, for example a weapon.
Has nothing to do with ownership.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:17 PM
Has nothing to do with ownership. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:17 PM
Just more opinions with no independent references, sources or links.
Provide them Common - or shut up demanding others do it.
Liberals - the height of hypocrisy.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:20 PM
- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:06 PM
Sorry if I hit a nerve Common. Your reply sounded as if it came from an underdeveloped 7 year old child.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:34 PM
Maybe one of commons ancestors related how his cousin got beared way back. He would have had a chance if he had arms to bear against the bear.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:35 PM
"Here's a good link you need to read..."
I have no objection to the 2nd Amendment. I argue only that it is not as inclusive as the NRA fanatics would have you believe, and there is no reason to not close gun show loopholes, restrict high capacity magazines, and some semi-automatic weapons designed with the sole purpose of killing people.
Private ownership of heavy military weapons and automatics is already restricted and the nation has not collapsed.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:35 PM
"Sorry if I hit a nerve..."
You did not, your babbling doesn't bother me at all. It makes you appear foolish, but that's your privilege.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:39 PM
If you have no objection, why do you try to convince others it doesn't mean what it means?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:39 PM
I argue only that it is not as inclusive as the NRA fanatics would have you believe-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:35 PM
The US Supreme Court - sucks to be on the losing end of their decision on the 2nd amendment doesn't it?
You're so ignorant on the law or the constitution. Try getting off the White House web site once in a while. You'll learn the truth.
You have no credibility here...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:39 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:35 PM
What part of shall not be infinged will not penetrate your thick skull?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 8:52 PM
"Apparently, despite your military background, you are unaware that there are two components to the militia..."
I am not unaware. The Missouri State Militia is a volunteer organization, as in...
"The Missouri Militia is a volunteer organization formed to train and act as a reserve component to the Missouri National Guard.
"The intent of the Missouri Militia is to act as a supplemental State Defense Force (SDF) for the state of Missouri. The militia is classified as a civilian volunteer organization and therefore will carry out operations in absence of orders as dictated by necessity during a crisis. All Missouri Militia personnel will conduct themselves with professionalism, integrity and the utmost respect for others at all times."
"In the event of invasion or insurrection, There may not be time to call up the Guard, and it may fall upon the shoulders of those "angry white men" to form the first line of defense. The founders understood this. Sadly, too many have forgotten the lessons of History."
The "lessons of history" show historical threats that are non-existent now. From the 18th century on there were real and valid perils from Native American Indians, British Tories, French-Canadians, Mexican outlaws, American outlaw gangs, not to mention bears, wolves, cougars, etc.
Aside from current criminal elements, those former threats don't intimidate or menace us anymore. Obviously, there are international threats which may or may not surface here, but those are the province of the US military, the CIA, the FBI, State Police agencies, sheriff's departments and local police forces.
And of course there are threats from other nations and any invasion would be detected long before it would be too late to "call up the guard."
All-in-all, it's hard to envision how anything in today's world would require "those 'angry white men' to form the first line of defense."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:09 PM
All-in-all, it's hard to envision how anything in today's world would require "those 'angry white men' to form the first line of defense."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:09 PM
And this changes our Constitution and it's Ammendments in what way?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:15 PM
Glad to help you out again...
It doesn't change anything of substance right now. With the ongoing level of gun violence, eventually Americans may find that the only way rationalize firearm availability is by updating the 2nd Amendment, if only to clarify the wording.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:24 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:24 PM
I already knew it made no changes in the documents Commie. I was just checking to see if you had it figured out. Now why don't you pass that on to your Leftist co-conspiritors, including Theorist? She needs help in understanding those portions of our Constitution and it's Ammendments.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 9:54 PM
Wheels, It doesn't change anything of substance right now but in time some brainwashed radicals intend to fundamentally change America.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 10:03 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 10:03 PM
Yes, I agree.... like Theorist promoting the "living" document (Constitution) BS. It is our duty to correct that crap when Commie and Theorist bring it up as if it were a fact.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 27, 2015, at 10:08 PM
"All-in-all, it's hard to envision how anything in today's world would require "those 'angry white men' to form the first line of defense."
It is hard for you to envision it. That does not mean it does not exist.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 8:35 AM
Howw many million "undocumented" aliens reside in the country today? Two? Four? While they probably don't pose a threat, they show that our borders are much more porous than you would have us believe. If cleaning ladies and nannies can slip through the border undetected and undocumented, why do you believe fighting forces will be unable to do so, wreaking havoc before the Guard to respond?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 8:39 AM
Obviously, if we needed only guard against threats which can be easily envisioned, we could save a fortune on intelligence expenditures.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 8:41 AM
I'd suggest it exists primarily as justification for a specific interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. A supposition proclaiming that "we need to have guns in case we need to take over the government someday" could be considered as valid as claiming "we need to have guns in case we need to defeat the invading Martians." As long as you make a contention that can't be proven or disproven, you're safe, regardless of the probability of the event.
Just who or what group do you envision conducting this invasion or insurrection?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 8:47 AM
"...why do you believe fighting forces will be unable to do so..."
Because any "fighting force" would have a tremendous "footprint" when compared to the nannies and cleaning ladies. Those intelligence expenditures are what can detect the "fighting force."
I'd suggest also dealing with probabilities rather than possibilities.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 8:55 AM
I'd suggest also dealing with probabilities rather than possibilities.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 8:55 AM
Common
If you knew anything about managing situations you would know you had best consider both and rank them accordingly by risk of possible occurence.
Not considering both is what has Obama stuttering and stammering where ISIS is conserned.
But not to fear, he is going to strike terror in their minds and hearts by going to a climate conference. That will show them!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 10:47 AM
And how would you have prevented this? By taking law abiding citizens guns away from them?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 10:50 AM
Too bad those cops aren't as efficient in getting a bad guy out of a building as Walmart is in getting merchandise out of a building.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 11:00 AM
"we need to have guns in case we need to take over the government someday"
I suggest you re-examine why the Colonists took up arms in the first place. The Declaration of Independence might be a good place to start.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 12:03 PM
"Just who or what group do you envision conducting this invasion or insurrection?"
If we knew that, we could simply suppress them from the start, could we not? Obviously we are not likely to know the source of the threat until it is upon us. However, I say you are dangerously naive if you think none exists.
The existence of an armed populace serves to keep them at bay. Remove or reduce that, and you will embolden them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 12:07 PM
"...we are not likely to know the source of the threat until it is upon us..."
That type of definition would include the Martians and their alien allies.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 12:14 PM
Martians and their alien allies would never dare invade a long as Obama has the head of France beside him.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 12:32 PM
Here we go again... -- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 9:44 AM
In other news, an average of 3,000 unborn children are killed every day in the US at Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics.
But let's focus on a nut-job gunman killing 3 people at a single Planned Parenthood facility? Yep, that's where the problems is right?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 1:17 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 9:44 AM
Here we go again? You been living under a rock? Killings happen everday by black thugs in the inner cities.
Why are killings by whites the only killings that concern you and the media? Obviously black live matter to neither you nor the media.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 1:55 PM
We spend a lot of money with CDC and WHO to be ready for threats. We have specific rules for immigration. Both should be respected.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 6:54 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 12:14 PM
Or Ebola! Or Syrian orphans!
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 6:47 PM
None of which have anything to do with the subject of the thread. Just diversions.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 7:03 PM
Or Ebola! Or Syrian orphans! -- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 6:47 PM
Such lack of compassion or empathy for those with Ebola, orphans or aborted children.
Is it all funny to you?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 7:10 PM
-- Posted by G. H. on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 7:15 PM
Apparently so. Laugh about Ebola, orphans and abortion.
But get crazy about a nut that kills 3 people. It's all bout the agenda and getting her / their way at any cost.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 7:24 PM
"That type of definition would include the Martians and their alien allies."
Our government spends a lot of money searching for signs of intelligent life on other planets. If you think belief in aliens is crazy, take it up with them. My fears lie more with Earthbound threats, of which there appear to be more than a few.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 29, 2015, at 7:38 AM
"Because any "fighting force" would have a tremendous "footprint" when compared to the nannies and cleaning ladies. Those intelligence expenditures are what can detect the "fighting force"."
That presumes the fighting force would have to be brought in en masse. Thousands of cleaning ladies and nannies would leave a large footprint, too. But, since they didn't arrive en masse, they were able to tiptoe past the border watchers. Why do you think a fighting force would be incapable of doing the same?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 29, 2015, at 9:34 PM
Our government spends a lot of money searching for signs of intelligent life on other planets. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 29, 2015, at 7:38 AM
Shapley: That's because there aren't any intelligent life in Washington D.C.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Nov 30, 2015, at 9:03 AM
Or Ebola! Or Syrian orphans!-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Nov 28, 2015, at 6:47 PM
Theorist: Do you ever read your comments before you post them. Apparently not.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Nov 30, 2015, at 9:07 AM
An "Active Shooter" incident is going on now in San Bernadino, California. Multiple assailants in full military garb, apparently wearing bullet-proof vests.
Initial reports say three dead, many wounded.
The attack appears to be on an office that serves the developmentally disabled. This does not appear to be the sort of facility that would be targeted by "right wingers" or "left wingers". Nor is it a likely place for a robbery. I would have to suspect terrorism.
Reports also state a possible bomb has been placed at the scene, and is being defused by the bomb squad.
I would caution against accepting early reports, however.
We'll see how this plays out.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 3:17 PM
That would be "San Bernardino". Sorry.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 3:21 PM
The shooter(s) have apparently gotten away in an SUV. Again, not typical of most of these mass shootings, where the shooter remains on the scene until he kills himself, or is killed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 3:25 PM
Two are accounted for, both dead. Eyewitnesses said there were three. They are still searching for the third.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 8:55 PM
He went to Saudi in 2013, and from there to Pakistan, according to the reports.
They tried hard to destroy their digital footprint. They trashed their cellphones and disposed of them a couple of blocks from home, hoping they wouldn't be found. Apparently, they also trashed their computers.
The wife pledged her allegience on a facebook page, using an alias. She then deleted it, according to the reports.
That would suggest the husband may also have a facebook page under an alias. I am sure the FBI is looking for that, but the first have to find something that points toward it.
The news was reporting yestetday he had left a very small an non-descript digital footprint. That footprint may prove to be larger, over time.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 2:24 PM
Here we go again, no matter what country one lives in those bent on hurting/killing folks will find a way.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:45 AM
BTW, the above link is from AP, I do not look or listen to the Aljazeera. (in case the NSA is on these threads)
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:47 AM
-- Posted by semo471 on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:45 AM
More "workplace violence" Semo471. I thought this sruff doesn't happen outside the USA.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:56 AM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 9:56 AM
Wheels: All one has to do is to get off the WH or Media matters webpages and onto a world wide webpage such as AP, CNN, Fox, or Reuters to see what is going on in the world.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:09 AM
-- Posted by semo471 on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:09 AM
I agree.
Wonder how long before Lil Barry comes out from under his desk where he has been hiding and retracts his premature statements on the "Workplace Violence" in San Bernardino"?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:15 AM
Theorist and Common are going to have to really work to explain this being the fault of a lack of adequate gun control and to explain how more gun control will stop ISIS based or ISIS supporting terrorists in the World or the United States.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Dec 5, 2015, at 10:21 AM
Menu
Schumer vowing to push gun control.
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/703339
Replies (120)