Learn your history!

[critterwhisper]

creepy nova i just wrote the same thing lol

 

[rufus]

Enemies of the state. All has been noted.

 

[oldrooster]

Probably because this is considered a politically sensitive post. I personally think that your post is inflammatory and misleading. I in no way, shape or form consider our President anywhere close to the monster Hitler was which is what your post it leading too.
That is all....

Of course you do, and the media wants you to, that's why the LA Times had a reporter made up a name for him during the '08 election and then the opponents of Obama made this song up about the reporter's nick name for him.

 

[rufus]

If you don't look at the freight train, it won't hit you. So just sit there on the tracks.

 

[nova022]

creepy nova i just wrote the same thing lol

Great minds, lol

 

[nova022]

Enemies of the state. All has been noted.

"if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything" (I believe that is how the song goes)

 

[carmelchickie]

Along the same lines...does anyone else get shivers when the read 1984, atlas shrugged etc....I remember reading them in high school and thinking this could never happen....now I read then and think **** instead of being a warning of what not to do they're practically being used as a guide book

 

[DeepFriedBacon]

Ah politics!

I've spent quite a bit of time on facebook reponding to people who claim to protect our constitution, yet don't understand it completely...

If this is a jab @ the current gun control legislation, I'd love to hear a comparible suggestion to curb the gun violence in our country. Most will call it gun registration, however most firearms are already tracked 1968.
Banning assault weapons I find ridiculous, look @ the war on drugs, that's been working beautifully. Magazine restriction I can understand. We need to enforce what laws we have, and there needs to be additional laws written to plug the holes in the existing law. Crimes committed with firearms need a manditory minimum sentence applied to the time for initial crime as well.

The second amendment doesn't say what weapons you can have, or how many. But if you believe they legally shouldn't be able to hold a ban, you already cannot buy machine guns, tanks, F-18's and napalm. So to believe in "unfettered access" you must also agree that you should be able to purchase any weapon available to the military, and that's a scary, scary thought.

Our constitution, while great, isn't infallable. It's a historical document, and to read it without the context of the time it was written is absurd. Even one of the most integral men who wrote a great deal of the constitution knew this, and understood that humanity will grow and advance:
"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as ne discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change in circumstances, institution must also advance and keep pace with the times." - Thomas Jefferson 1816

Powerful words coming from a man who helped write our constitution. His foresight knew society will evolve, and technology is a game changer.
We don't need to eliminate the 2nd amendment, rather define it clearly, in our "modern" context. Only problem is I sure don't trust any politician of today to have the same level of intelligence and unbiased persona to come up with a compromise.
No matter what, people will only send to washington those who will give them the biggest slice of pie, and therein lies the problem.
I mean, there is nothing stopping anyone from easily amassing an aresenal and selling to the black market for their own personal gain. .

 

[rufus]

Gun control does not curb crime. Mexico has gun control and yet it is almost as dangerous as Chicago or Detroit. Nobody legally has firearms that they can carry on the street for protection, but the cartels can outshoot the Mexican Army any time they wish. Thanks to Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama.

I just want to know who got all of the mordida to allow "Fast and Furious?"

The cartels have a "plomo o plata" policy. The cops and judiciary either get the silver or they get the lead. The tendency is to take the silver. Nobody wants to die.

So, it is up to the Mexican Army to deal with the situation. They know that if they arrest a sicario, the judicial system will just let them go. The criminals would then take revenge on the Army and their families. Ergo, there are few arrests and lots of shot punks.

 

[DeepFriedBacon]

Mexico isn't the usa. Every state that does have a conceal carry law, in which you are fingerprinted and registered, violent crime drops significantly.

No one is trying to find a perfect system. It's impossible. Background checks do however keep legally purchased-or purchasable firearms out of the wrong hands. Can criminals still find access, sure, but it beats just handing them guns at a gun store because they have cash. Over 2 million people have been denied firearms because of past criminal activity, that without the check, would have been able to purchase one as if it were say a bottle of shampoo.

The problem is not every sale requires one, there is no database for the laws we do have so no real way for a check to even be thorough enough to matter.

My favorite theory is this will only affect law abiding citizens. Because criminals won't subject themselves to a check. Well, if anyone has this mindset, I wanna point out that every single written law only affects the law abiding citizens. There's a "do not kill" law that criminals don't seem to be following, does that mean we should just take it off the books? No, laws don't affect criminals, but the penalties do. Let's re-examine our laws and penalties, plug the holes, solidify the system.