rushmc 18 #26 April 18, 2013 I am sooooooooooooo glad you are pissed about this. Today (for now anyway ) America, it's children and the Constitution, won"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #27 April 18, 2013 i will have to agree on this one. i have been known to mention the original intent of the constitution. this is wrong, and i try to use it to point that out. if i can interpret the words to mean one thing, so can anyone else for the opposite. it should be read, not interpreted. the system is good, but not perfect, nothing is. every legal citizen of the us should have the same rights, and responsibilities, as every other legal citizen. it's a good day, indeed for rights, but we're a long way from being done.http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,660 #28 April 18, 2013 Quotei will have to agree on this one. i have been known to mention the original intent of the constitution. this is wrong, and i try to use it to point that out. if i can interpret the words to mean one thing, so can anyone else for the opposite. it should be read, not interpreted. the system is good, but not perfect, nothing is. every legal citizen of the us should have the same rights, and responsibilities, as every other legal citizen. . Convicted felons are citizens too. Great idea to arm them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #29 April 18, 2013 More misdirection and bs. At least you are consistent"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #30 April 18, 2013 QuoteNo, it is SHAMEFUL. Biden's little pout face is priceless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #31 April 18, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Failed in Senate today. And THIS is a good deal No, it is SHAMEFUL. Even a bipartisan amendment to impose stiff penalties on gun traffickers, which was supported by the N.R.A. and expected to be adopted by voice vote, instead was defeated, receiving 58 votes. Why do Republicans love gun traffickers? http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33712263.jpg "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BartsDaddy 4 #32 April 18, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Failed in Senate today. And THIS is a good deal No, it is SHAMEFUL. Even a bipartisan amendment to impose stiff penalties on gun traffickers, which was supported by the N.R.A. and expected to be adopted by voice vote, instead was defeated, receiving 58 votes Why do Republicans love gun traffickers? I don't think republicans love Eric Holder. But I don't know all republicans so maybe some do. Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #33 April 18, 2013 first off, that's where tougher penalties come in. if you're out, you're rehabilitated, if you're not fit to be out, then stay in. second, i believe there are already laws removing the right to felons from owning arms, or are you that ignorant? responsibility means to follow laws or suffer consequences. too many dui's, you can't drive, etc.http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 635 #34 April 18, 2013 I'm as equally impressed with a president that didn't get his way politically lowers himself to calling opponents liars. Way to keep it classy. This was a wasted effort that would in no way reduce mass killings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 April 18, 2013 QuoteObama's short speech today was simply a reflection of the will of the majority of the American people. Don't believe it? Check the polls. 90% of Americans don't think the Westboro Christians deserve their 1st Amendment rights either. Or that flags can be burned. Or not very long ago, that gays should be able to marry. Civil rights aren't up for votes. The entire point of the Bill of Rights was to protect freedoms from the mob. Quote Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are hanging their heads today, wherever they are. You think the guy who coined the phrase: 'he who would sacrifice freedoms for safety deserves neither' is on your side here? Let's see some facepalms! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #36 April 18, 2013 QuoteObama's short speech today was simply a reflection of the will of the majority of the American people. Don't believe it? Check the polls. I have and I posted above. and you are inccorect Legal, honest gun owners or purchasers have nothing to fear from the proposals.They are the ones that have the most to fear. Illegal gun owners will simply ignore what the law abiding will suffer through It's never been about mass killings, although when they happen it does draw more attention to the problem. It's about the daily carnage throughout our country that happens day in/day out. Much of which is done by people who should NOT have guns. And, as Biden and others have admitted on tapes that have been posted on this site, nothing that was proposed would have stopped the shooting at Sandy Hook. So why do it then? Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are hanging their heads today, wherever they are.They are standing tall knowning that part of document, they worked so hard to put in place, is being uhheld. For now"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 April 18, 2013 I heard the President venting yesterday on the radio. He sounded pissed off and demonstrated some of the most fantastic partisan rhetoric peppered with outright lies that I've ever heard from him. I was particularly shocked at the double-speak. Mr. President: why'd you say: "They claimed that it would create some sort of 'big brother' gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter." You're a lawyer. You know what statutory construction is about. What the bill really did was take a 1986 law that banned a national gun registry and narrowed the definition to mean: (1) only the Attorney General is barred from a gun registry; and (2) a gun registry is defined as ONLY being records from sellers or insurance companies. There's already a ban on any forrm of gun registry by anybody in the federeal government. So why are you so furious when law means that only the Dept. Of Justice is banned from it? Because passage would have meant that the Department of Homeland Security would have been able to, for example, acquire records from all the states and centralize them into a "gun ownership roster" (bot a registry). So when you said, "We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system" that is EXACTLY what you meant, wasn't it? Or was that yet another reference to HIPAA? Mr. President - if you have to outright lie about what something means that means that you KNOW it's indefensible. Hope and change are dead. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #38 April 18, 2013 Quote It's never been about mass killings Exactly Right... its about power. That's why I say... No More Power. Quote Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are hanging their heads today Very Stupid Comment Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #39 April 18, 2013 QuoteYou think the guy who coined the phrase: 'he who would sacrifice freedoms for safety deserves neither' is on your side here? Let's see some facepalms! Some people rethink their own positions on matters in a lifetime. Kind of silly to automatically assume that somebody would have the exact same stance and opinions 220 years later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #40 April 18, 2013 QuoteKind of silly to automatically assume that somebody would have the exact same stance and opinions 220 years later. Has human nature changed in the last 220 years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #42 April 18, 2013 Feel free to explain... I fully disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #43 April 18, 2013 QuoteQuoteYou think the guy who coined the phrase: 'he who would sacrifice freedoms for safety deserves neither' is on your side here? Let's see some facepalms! Some people rethink their own positions on matters in a lifetime. Kind of silly to automatically assume that somebody would have the exact same stance and opinions 220 years later. The same could be said (with different timeframes) of Marx, Keynes, Adam Smith, etc. We can only judge by their stated ideals. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #44 April 18, 2013 Sure thing. Right after you explain how you know the founding father's would have the exact same opinions they had 220 years ago, when faced with the evolution of arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #45 April 18, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou think the guy who coined the phrase: 'he who would sacrifice freedoms for safety deserves neither' is on your side here? Let's see some facepalms! Some people rethink their own positions on matters in a lifetime. Kind of silly to automatically assume that somebody would have the exact same stance and opinions 220 years later. The same could be said (with different timeframes) of Marx, Keynes, Adam Smith, etc. We can only judge by their stated ideals. A lot of their ideas have been adjusted over time, based on results, effects, changes in societies, etc. Most seem to feel that is impossible when it comes to specifically the 2nd amemdment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #46 April 18, 2013 QuoteSure thing. Right after you explain how you know the founding father's would have the exact same opinions they had 220 years ago, when faced with the evolution of arms. I already have, multiple times... Death To Tyrants... my home state of Virginia's Motto. Since you are Canadian (unless just living there), like with Europeans, I don't blame you if you don't understand power as Franklin (and the others) did. Human Nature has not changed... ideas have and can change, but Human Nature has not. And thank G-d to date, we haven't had a way to change it. The Progressive Era was ugly, and they were wrong. However, Transhumanism could most definitely bring about a change if computers are merged with the brain and not simply the body. But that is not inevitable... And soon the evolution of arms... will be unregulatable by any government. So, the discussions we are having now are pointless. That is if you are looking to the future... Progressives (in both parties) don't seem to think that anyone but they, are looking to the future. ("They want to take us back to slavery, and no women suffrage... and blah blah blah.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #47 April 18, 2013 QuoteQuoteYou think the guy who coined the phrase: 'he who would sacrifice freedoms for safety deserves neither' is on your side here? Let's see some facepalms! Some people rethink their own positions on matters in a lifetime. Kind of silly to automatically assume that somebody would have the exact same stance and opinions 220 years later. And monkeys might fly out of your ass next year!! OMG! sorry, dekker, stick to facts actually in evidence. It's intellectually bankrupt to use a complete unfounded maybe as a argument. the reality is that the Constitution was written during scary times, too. Then too you had people who would compromise ideals for perceived safety. He flatly called that out. I don't see any reason for him to compromise his beliefs now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #48 April 18, 2013 Quotesorry, dekker, stick to facts actually in evidence. It's intellectually bankrupt to use a complete unfounded maybe as a argument. And what facts do you have of the tendency of a man to change his mind after 200 years? QuoteI don't see any reason for him to compromise his beliefs now. Oh, so you mean it is, like, your opinion? I thought you wanted to only stick to facts? Fact is: we don't know how a person would feel about his own ideals, thoughts and opinions 220 years later. Which is what I said in my first post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #49 April 18, 2013 QuoteI don't see any reason for him to compromise his beliefs now. It wouldn't be a compromise on beliefs... It would be ignoring history; the study of history, government, and human nature which brought him TO that recognition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #50 April 18, 2013 Quote Fact is: we don't know how a person would feel about his own ideals, thoughts and opinions 220 years later. Which is what I said in my first post. so to repeat: "sorry, dekker, stick to facts actually in evidence." Until you can find the Zombie Franklin and ask him, or supply some actual support for your claim he might propose a different viewpoint, it's a waste of our time to make such a banal statement that 'maybe he would change his mind.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
