Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[maxman]

That's pretty amazing that he was shot 5 times in the head and neck and still drove away. She was obviously well trained and a damn good shot. That's also the proper use of a weapon for home defense and I don't think anyone here would disagree.

 

Now, can you also justify George Zimmerman chasing down and killing Travon Martin!

Can you explain why the media altered the 911 tapes to make Zimmerman look like raciest? Common knowledge that two NBC employees were fired for starting this racist narrative 

 

Can you explain why the father said the voice screaming was not his sons. Two police officers heard him say It and will testify to that under oath. It seems the father changed his mind after talking to his race baiting attorneys. I can just see Travon.....aka No_ limit N....his name on his twitter account... screaming for help while he was wailing on George.

 

Ms Fulton....Travons mom said that this was a unfortunate accident on national TV. After talking with her  lawyers she changed her mind. Before that she said.."this Is not a white or black thing....but a right or wrong thing". But after talking with her lawyers she again has changed her mind. See a pattern here?

 

George Zimmerman had a right to watch Trayvon. Neighborhood watch....get It? There were signs everywhere In this gated community that reminded people that there was neighborhood watch In place. Some say that George should have stayed In his truck. Some will say that Travon being a visitor should have just went home. But Trayvon sized up old george and thought he would be a easy ass whipping.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but when your nose is broken and your head Is being smashed against the cement sidewalk. Well that tells me that person Is trying to do serious harm to that human being. Some will say that his Injuries were not life threating. Was he supposed to wait until they were? Maybe a coma or death would have sufficed.

.

I'll hold my final judgement until the trial. But things are not always what they first appear. But George Zimmerman didn't meet the sweet 12 year child on the pony that night that lamestream media so desperately tried to push.

 

Mike

[ldegeneve]

 But things are not always what they first appear. But George Zimmerman didn't meet the sweet 12 year child on the pony that night that lamestream media so desperately tried to push.

 

Not to veer too off-topic, but I can't resist. Does it really matter? What if he was a bad boy school bully? We should be ok with his death then?

A 17 year old kid was killed. For doing what, exactly?

 

If Zimmerman did not have a gun, I am fairly sure he would still be alive today. Maybe Trayvon should have had a gun to defend himself. I'm sure if you had 17 year old sons (or daughters, for that matter), you would want them to be able to protect themselves with a gun too, right?

 

So this is what a free, polite society comes down to. A cold war between all. 

 

...

 

And please don't tell me BUT TYRANNY!

 

Yeah, sure, I mean, look at Canada. Those poor bastards.

[JoeyB]

'The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.' -- Adolph Hitler

Yep, that is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Insurgencies have a habit of winning. 

[JoeyB]

Finally! It took 3 pages for someone to illustrate the bottom line:

 

A gun owner is more likely to take his own life or the life of a family member, than he is to defend his home and property by killing a bad guy with his firearm.

 

By the way everyone likes to hail Switzerland as this haven of non-violence, but they too have a serious suicide problem with the very weapons from military service that are stored in the home.

 

The 2^nd ammendment is archaic and is no more relevant today than Martin Luther's The Ninety-Five Theses. America is still trying to function based on 18^th century principles of government. When America starts helping its citizens with education, health, and general well-being, crime and social unrest will all but disappear. Today America is The Land of the Fear, instead of Free. People live in fear of starvation, unemployment, bad health, homelessness, encarceration, etc. and they are being made to believe that it's not those social problems, but that their constitutional rights are being eroded.

 

P.S. I am a Canadian, living in a social welfare province, and I own 2 pistols and a sub-machine gun because I like guns.

This is page 12.

 

The "bottom line" is that the 2nd Amendment is as relevant today as ever, and maybe more so. 

 

The rest of your post is horse manure.

 

Too bad you felt the need to make your very first post here in such a chicken squat manner. Or maybe it's not your very first post, but you felt the need to hide. Either way, it says a lot about you.

[icoopernicus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/taft-high-school-armed-guard_n_2450710.html

 

oops

[KB]

I am taking no further part as I believe I have said what I came to say.

 

However I do have a question...

 

Why are there members referring to the The Federalist Papers as if they are part of the US Constitution?

 

My understanding is that The Federalist Papers, whilst comprehensive and the precursor to the Constitution, was in fact an Essay and in no way US law in itself.

 

 

Ken

[Nanuq]

Ken, the Papers were written to explain the intent and thought behind the proposed Constitution. They were sent to the Many States to persuade them to ratify the Constitution and agree to allow a "federal" government be created. 

 

At the time each State was sovereign and governed itself (hint: they still do, or should).  A federal government would intrude on their sovereignty and they needed some mollification to go along with the program.

 

It gives us insight into the thoughts of the men that authored the Constitution, so when a detail seems vague in today's vernacular, we can get another perspective of what they "really meant."

[Nanuq]

As long as we're posting meaningful thoughts from news sources around the world.............

 

"For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

 

"The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

 

"No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

 

"So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect."

 

Stanislav Mishin

 

 

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

[KB]

Yes I understand all this but it was still the predecessor of the Constitution and in quoting them you are still only quoting 3 civilians ideas, yes they were obviously highly intelligent men and what they wrote was the blueprint of the Constitution but is it not correct that The Federalist Papers is not apart of US law itself?

 

 

Ken

[freddy333]

Ken, the Papers were written to explain the intent and thought behind the proposed Constitution. They were sent to the Many States to persuade them to ratify the Constitution and agree to allow a "federal" government be created. 

 

At the time each State was sovereign and governed itself (hint: they still do, or should).  A federal government would intrude on their sovereignty and they needed some mollification to go along with the program.

 

It gives us insight into the thoughts of the men that authored the Constitution, so when a detail seems vague in today's vernacular, we can get another perspective of what they "really meant."

 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[freddy333]

Yes I understand all this but it was still the predecessor of the Constitution and in quoting them you are still only quoting 3 civilians ideas, yes they were obviously highly intelligent men and what they wrote was the blueprint of the Constitution but is it not correct that The Federalist Papers is not apart of US law itself?

Ken

 

No, Ken, it is the other way around. The Federalist Papers, written after the Constitution was drafted, were, essentially, a sales pitch to the states & people explaining, as Nanuq correctly said, some of the more idiosyncratic ideas cited in the Constitution. Constitutional scholars often return to the Federalist Papers, as well as the private writings of the men who drafted the Constitution, to gain insight into their reasoning behind the tenets defined in it.

And, again, if the majority of people feel the Constitution is no longer valid, there is a simple process (outlined within the Constitution itself) to amend it. If there is not a majority, then the Constitution was purposely (&, to my way of thinking, correctly) written to make it difficult for un-constitutional laws to be enacted.

And remember, too, that it is not only the president who must defend & protect the Constitution, it is every US citizen's responsibility as well, which is why free people must never have their right to keep & bear arms infringed upon by the government.

[Mike on a bike]

Could not agree with this more ""For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position"

 

Get it! Wake up! You are being played.

[Nanuq]

Could not agree with this more ""For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position"

 

Get it! Wake up! You are being played.

 

 

Did you notice where that writing originated?

 

Pravda.

[Mike on a bike]

Nanuq ,they should know.

[Mike on a bike]

You know I have been trying to abstain from this thread and have tried to be as PC as possible when discussing but let me just put it simply "out of my cold dead hands".

[Mike on a bike]

Yea OK I said it you all know I thought it anyway, flame away.

[tomhorn]

I've read all of this. Very passionate arguments on both sides.

 

For the record, I do not own currently a gun, nor have I ever owned one.

 

To the non US citizen members, I can understand where you are coming from. The lack of logic in 'needing' to own weapons (whether you think any weapon, or just assault weapons) is probably a perfectly natural thing for you to believe based on the evolution of your society, how you were raised, and the overall experiences in your life. Here in the US (for better or worse), we were raised differently. Our country's history is different. You can't equate one to the other with any measure of statistics, or other arguments. To the US citizens who believe in gun control, I will respectfully disagree with you as well, but not because of statistics, or school shootings, or any other 'perfectly logical' argument. Perhaps you upbringing or circumstances haven't put you in a situation where needing a gun was essential, or you've just come to that conclusion through things you've read or heard. I fell into that category ... but I have changed my mind for one reason. It took awhile for me to decide enough is enough.

 

I am now going to buy a gun on principle alone.

 

The US government has been tranpling on the Constitution and its Amendments for quite some time. This might be the issue that finally makes others stop and think about that too. I certainly hope so, It has for me. Purely out of protest I will buy a gun, not because I need one, but because the Constitution says I can and I am tired of the government trampling on my Rights (with a capital R).

 

As many have said, our country was created by overthrowing what our founding fathers believed to be a tyranical ruler. The 2nd Amendment was specifically designed to allow for the ability of common men to band together and do it again, if the people believed the new government also got out of control. The Civil War in our country was a prime example of the intent of 2nd Amendment in action.

 

The 'problem' with banning 'some' weapons, is that the 'person' deciding what weapons to ban will be .... wait for it ... the government. That entity which according to our founding fathers was supposed to be kept in check (I believe as a last resort, BTW) by the ability of the people to keep and bear arms. Personally, I think ALL weapons should be available, despite my having no desire (right now) to own anything more than a handgun. I do want everything to be available in case I change my mind, or circumstances dictate that I need to own more than a handgun (like becomming Nanuq's next door neighbor).

 

I had a friend who is a lawyer tell me that the Constitution has to protect equally. Even the people you disagree with, or the actions you might think are wrong (like burning a flag). He also told me the Constitution was a living document, and was designed to be changed when the people deemed it was needed. IF the people of the United States want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, then (and only then) come after the guns.

 

Until then ... the Constitution says we can own 'arms' and therefore we should be allowed to do so. It's really as simple an argument as that. Personally I think if the founding fathers were dropped into the US today they would be appalled at what the federal government has become. They'd probably start another revolution just because we obviously didn't get it the first time.

[JoeyB]

The US government has been tranpling on the Constitution and its Amendments for quite some time.....and I am tired of the government trampling on my Rights (with a capital R).

I disagree. As I've already stated earlier in this thread, I believe we have more rights now that ever before in our history, and that includes having the Patriot Act still in force. 

 

The Civil War in our country was a prime example of the intent of 2nd Amendment in action.

I disagree. The Civil War saw states secede from the Union, form a new nation, and man a uniformed Army to attack the Union. The 2nd Amendment wasn't in play.

 

The 'problem' with banning 'some' weapons, is that the 'person' deciding what weapons to ban will be .... wait for it ... the government.

Again I disagree. We see today, this very day, the Vice President address his findings in  talking to The People of the United States. Yes, our government will make a law, but it is being done WITH our participation and approval. 

 

I had a friend who is a lawyer tell me that the Constitution has to protect equally. Even the people you disagree with, or the actions you might think are wrong (like burning a flag). He also told me the Constitution was a living document, and was designed to be changed when the people deemed it was needed. IF the people of the United States want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, then (and only then) come after the guns.

"Had"?? That's a smart friend. You should get him back. Again, as  I said earlier in this thread, the Constitution is a living, breathing document of our government designed by our founders to serve us by being amended as we need. 

 

Until then ... the Constitution says we can own 'arms' and therefore we should be allowed to do so. It's really as simple an argument as that. Personally I think if the founding fathers were dropped into the US today they would be appalled at what the federal government has become. They'd probably start another revolution just because we obviously didn't get it the first time.

Personally I think that if our Founders were to come to life today they would be in awe, impressed, heartened and heart warmed at all we've accomplished with their ideas, their work, and their blood. They would understand that we still have issues to solve, that we are still growing. But remember, most of our Founders were Liberal idealists who decided to risk all they had build a Nation. And in that process they  became Liberal realists.

[mastrmindalliance]

The United States of America certainly has a Constitution, yours is based on ours, and Amendments. 

Wrong. And weren't you the one whining about condescension earlier? Wake up to yourself mate.

[tomhorn]

I disagree. As I've already stated earlier in this thread, I believe we have more rights now that ever before in our history, and that includes having the Patriot Act still in force. 

 

I disagree. The Civil War saw states secede from the Union, form a new nation, and man a uniformed Army to attack the Union. The 2nd Amendment wasn't in play.

 

Again I disagree. We see today, this very day, the Vice President address his findings in  talking to The People of the United States. Yes, our government will make a law, but it is being done WITH our participation and approval. 

 

"Had"?? That's a smart friend. You should get him back. Again, as  I said earlier in this thread, the Constitution is a living, breathing document of our government designed by our founders to serve us by being amended as we need. 

 

Personally I think that if our Founders were to come to life today they would be in awe, impressed, heartened and heart warmed at all we've accomplished with their ideas, their work, and their blood. They would understand that we still have issues to solve, that we are still growing. But remember, most of our Founders were Liberal idealists who decided to risk all they had build a Nation. And in that process they  became Liberal realists.

 

You obviously have a different view of the current state of the United States. We must have had different History and Civics teachers.

 

With regards to the Civil War, it was started because the United States believed that the South's succession was illegal. There was even a meeting in 1861 that tried to reach a compromise and avert the War. If the United State had said, it was OK for the Southern States to succeed, there wouldn't have been a war. The war was the Southern State's exercising their rights to challenge the United States government. No way they would have been able to contemplate that if the United States government had taken their arms.

 

When the President signs an executive order to restrict guns, it is NOT beeing done with our participation and approval ... other than slightly more than half the people who voted elected him. Letting Congress pass a law, or Amending the Constitution on the other hand gives 'participation and approval of the people' a lot more weight.

 

The Founding Fathers believed that the Federal government should be as small as possible and should do as little as possible. We were formed as a union of States. Big difference in thought process. Essentially they wanted the Federal government to defend the Union and only do things it wasn't practical (or wise) for the States to do themselves. They would never have envisioned the size and scope of the current Federal Government.

 

Our current leaders violate the 10th Amendment more often than anyone can possibly keep up with, and don't even get me started about the trampling of our right to privacy. If you knew all the data the government collected about you it would scare you.

Edited January 11, 2013 by tomhorn

[cjjoyce1]

I disagree. The Civil War saw states secede from the Union, form a new nation, and man a uniformed Army to attack the Union. The 2nd Amendment wasn't in play.

Correct.  As I stated earlier, sovereignty of the states was just as important as the independence of the nation to the formation of this country.  Many of the Confederate officers were officers in the U.S. Army who followed their states when they seceded.  Robert E. Lee was once the Superintendent of West Point.

[cjjoyce1]

I don't know why I can't fix it, but in my post above, the second "qoute" from JoeyB are my comments.

[cjjoyce1]

Ken, the Papers were written to explain the intent and thought behind the proposed Constitution. They were sent to the Many States to persuade them to ratify the Constitution and agree to allow a "federal" government be created. 

 

At the time each State was sovereign and governed itself (hint: they still do, or should).  A federal government would intrude on their sovereignty and they needed some mollification to go along with the program.

 

It gives us insight into the thoughts of the men that authored the Constitution, so when a detail seems vague in today's vernacular, we can get another perspective of what they "really meant."

 

Precisely.  And though I posted it before, I'll just add that The Declaration of Independence wasn't written to address just the people in the Colonies.  "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world".

[JoeyB]

Wrong. And weren't you the one whining about condescension earlier? Wake up to yourself mate.

You think you got the idea elsewhere?

 

I don't believe that was whining at all.

 

Wake yourself up. You followed our lead.

 

I'm not your "mate". 

[woof*]

You know I have been trying to abstain from this thread and have tried to be as PC as possible when discussing but let me just put it simply "out of my cold dead hands".

It's tough isn't it?

Every time one of these threads come along I dread reading them.

So tempted to explain things and try to enlighten the misinformed.

Several here do a wonderful job of it though. The real reason I don't speak more in these things is the nature if this wonderful forum we have.

The very people that think what I know is wrong....are the very people that are so nice and helpful otherwise.

Americans have a huge mess on our hands right now, history in the making. I pray we can stay with the Constitution on all things.