Thread: Pondering......

and with some people taking away their guns is asking for a second civil war. I know I told my wife, who was opposed to firearms, that she would go b4 my guns went

Yeah there is no solution, I do think some sort of reality needs to be faced. There are and will be more school shootings and some sort of solution that doesn't involve turning schools into prisons needs to be thought of. Guns or Guards need to be added some how to schools, a 10 minute response by police means a death toll. Get rid of guns and it will be something else. Thankfully Columnbine killers suffered from shoddy fuses on their bombs or else about 2000 to 3000 people would have been killed in that event.

The problem isn't weapons, the problem is monsters that manipulate the people around them and want to watch the world burn...You can't apply reason to this!

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Given the state of affairs in this country there is no solution.

I'd say that is a reasonably accurate statement. The best one could hope for is a compromise that may reduce the risk of more carnage. I'm getting to a stage in life where nothing much suprises me any more, but many aspects of the debate in the aftermath of this tragedy appear to have plumbed previously undiscovered depths.

I have a friend who runs a gun shop, he called me at 10 am (Tuesday)and asked if I could come and help him, I had errands to run and ended up getting there at noon. There were 5 guys in the parking lot when I got there and 5 more in the store, I helped for 6 hours, we did a great business, we even sold two AK's to a woman in her early 70's. It is the governments fear mongering making the sales.

Hey now now...I drive a Toyota! My wife also homeschools my children. I think you will see a trend towards that now. Obama The century's best gunsalesman. Ahem, excuse me..."salesperson".

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

It is the governments fear mongering making the sales.

I don't think so. When Obama got elected the first time around there was another completely manufactured run on guns and ammo.
I have no problem with people that gullible being fleeced, the market will sort it all out - if one steps back it's easy to see who in this country is getting ahead and who isn't.

Well - if you want to take some time, these are two great story's on the issue:

The New Yorker - "So you think you know the second amendment?"

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker

Here is a Fantastic story in the Economist about why we are all being so silly - "Fake Tears"

The Newtown massacre: Fake tears | The Economist

Here is a photo that I thought was just hilarious!

Originally Posted by earcutter

Well - if you want to take some time, these are two great story's on the issue:

The New Yorker - "So you think you know the second amendment?"

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker

Here is a Fantastic story in the Economist about why we are all being so silly - "Fake Tears"

The Newtown massacre: Fake tears | The Economist

Here is a photo that I thought was just hilarious!

OMG I don't think I ever read such a twist of reality with this New Yorker piece. The author of this article first attempts to put the reader on the defensive by suggesting that he/she may not know the second amendment very well. He then goes on to push an old and dismissed attempt to confuse militias and the rights of the individual to own firearms. He then goes on to challenge conservatives on the issue of originalism. Our right, individual right, to keep and bear arms was established prior to the Constitution and is rooted in British common law. This was established in the courts after the Boston massacre when it was said that the colonists were not able to lawfully defend themselves. The argument was lost in that the court insisted that the people DID have the right to arm themselves as was established in British common law. Originalism, as a concept, suggests that when the words of the Constitution are not sufficiently clear that we first see how the words were used in different areas of the same document as well as different versions of the signed legislation (something that should have negated the individual mandate, but that is another argument), and laws/regulations/writings/transcripts that lead to the final version. This whole idea of a militia was something concocted by the left as means to confuse history. Assuming the Supreme Court is somehow some holier than thou keeper of your Constitutional rights is a big mistake. They step up to their role with the same agendas and ideologies as anyone else in Washington. Originalism is the only thing that can protect us from that. The author clearly feels otherwise and makes a very poor case for his argument.

No way! Did you just call the liberal propaganda a 'great story'? When they take your guns away you've got only yourself to blame

Originally Posted by earcutter

The New Yorker - "So you think you know the second amendment?"

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

OMG I don't think I ever read such a twist of reality with this New Yorker piece. The author of this article first attempts to put the reader on the defensive by suggesting that he/she may not know the second amendment very well. He then goes on to push an old and dismissed attempt to confuse militias and the rights of the individual to own firearms. He then goes on to challenge conservatives on the issue of originalism. Our right, individual right, to keep and bear arms was established prior to the Constitution and is rooted in British common law. This was established in the courts after the Boston massacre when it was said that the colonists were not able to lawfully defend themselves. The argument was lost in that the court insisted that the people DID have the right to arm themselves as was established in British common law. Originalism, as a concept, suggests that when the words of the Constitution are not sufficiently clear that we first see how the words were used in different areas of the same document as well as different versions of the signed legislation (something that should have negated the individual mandate, but that is another argument), and laws/regulations/writings/transcripts that lead to the final version. This whole idea of a militia was something concocted by the left as means to confuse history. Assuming the Supreme Court is somehow some holier than thou keeper of your Constitutional rights is a big mistake. They step up to their role with the same agendas and ideologies as anyone else in Washington. Originalism is the only thing that can protect us from that. The author clearly feels otherwise and makes a very poor case for his argument.

Hey! Thanks for reading the story! All I have to say is that... and I am not being combative here is; if you don't feel as though the Supreme Courts rulings aren't the be all and end all of our civilization here, you will not have much of a chance to voice your opinion when you do what you think is right. Felons can't vote.

Originalism is a good thing indeed. Hence we have lobby groups - on both sides.