chess online
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Why the 2nd Amendment?The Honorable Senator from New York , Chuck Schumer, was getting a little uncomfortable in his chair. The room was absolutely dead quiet throughout her testimony and the gun banners (meaning Senators who want to BAN citizens' ownership of all guns) absolutely speechless as this little Texas gal chews them up and spits them out. She knows what the 2nd amendment is really all about. Watch it. You will be glad you did. Link below. ***************************************************************** video.google.com |
|||||||||
|
Softy ... On the issue itself, it's prob'ly a good thing that most Americans do not have handguns since we are all 'blessed' with human traits like anger and jealousy, or other forms of competitiveness. It seems lots of folks believe there would be far more deaths and injuries if everyone did have such weapons. It also seems lots of folks believe there would be fewer if we could defend ourselves. If more weapons were available, would there be more crime or less crime? Personally, I don't mind the idea of having a weapon in one's home (if you indeed want/need one), but I don't like the idea of people bearing arms (unless, that is, you might want ALL people to bear arms to protect themselves against those who do) ... I would rather trust my fellow citizens than have to protect myself against them. Now, regarding the government, I think the gun in the home is sufficient to protect. And, I also believe large weapons, assault weapons, and rapid fire weapons (or larger) ought not be in the public hands. |
|||||||||
|
thumper 14-Dec-11, 09:31 |
Deleted by thumper on 14-Dec-11, 09:34.
|
|||||||||
|
Softie www.50bmgstore.com |
|||||||||
|
Her argument seems to be, ''if I'd had a gun I could have stopped the murder''. Well yes, possibly, but is it not also possible that if tighter gun control existed then no incident would have taken place? Here in the UK we have tight gun laws, handguns are outright banned and in my lifetime of 25 years I can remember two incidents of a maniac on a gun rampage (The Dunblane massacre in 1996 at a primary school, which was before the handgun ban, and one late last year). The US it seems to have many more of these types of incidents than other countries. I'm not simply talking about other countries with tighter gun laws either, there are examples of countries with more guns per person and much lower gun crime rates (see Canada and I think Switzerland for examples). I would be intrigued as to why this is, what is the reason behind your outrageous gun murder rate? Violent culture? Loose gun control? Fear? Wealth disparity? It must be something, but no one seems to ever want to get to the bottom of it. |
|||||||||
|
www.youtube.com |
|||||||||
|
Itchy |
|||||||||
|
?? ?? he murdered both her parents, and several others, but 'i am not mad at the man.' |
|||||||||
|
Z ... |
|||||||||
|
chaz but that statement strikes me...she said it twice. i wonder why she felt she had to say it. it makes me question her motives. she claims not to be a member of nra, and i believe her. but to 'not be angry at the man' who murdered her parents for no reason right in front of her? why is she so willing to absolve the man of his guilt? saying he was insane is fine, but still... note..he did not kill several others...there were 23 killed and 20 wounded. |
|||||||||
|
softy With some digging it seems that the Nazis actually slightly relaxed laws that were left over from the democratic Weimar republic, but why let facts get in the way of a cliched argument right?! In any case there are many countries with tough gun control that have not ended up with dictatorships, and many that have despite a population with its fair share of guns. I don't really think the US has anything to fear from a revolution of bolshevik proportions or the dictatorship that followed, but since I know the response to that will be ''But what if it does happen??!!!" I will also say that private gun ownership wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference in that case anyway. If the military is on the side of the leader, the insurgant militia is pretty much stuffed (see Burma, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Iran, Turkmenistan, North Korea etc...) |
|||||||||
|
itchy |
|||||||||
|
I was going to say I want one but changed my mind.....I'll take two! |
|||||||||
|
thump |
|||||||||
|
www.youtube.com |
|||||||||
|
wow |
|||||||||
|
point missing from her statements I would think. Why didn't she get her gun from her car once she left the restaurant, go back in and blow the guy away, she sounded 'capable'. A background agenda there somewhere. She sounded too 'all together' for such a major traumatic recent event in her young life. The reference to the assault rifle for instance (the guy on his roof). I wonder did the guy in actual fact have to shoot anyone to 'protect his property' or was his simply parading with intent. Last comment after reading the post underneath the video: "...God given right..." Doesn't that just say it all! |
|||||||||
|
www.youtube.com |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
itchy |
|||||||||
|
softy |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Thumper |
|||||||||
|
itchy |
|||||||||
|
violence and'or killing. Very presumptive I must say. The arrogant attitude shown to others who are attempting to get some sort of dialogue going in this thread is unbelievable. How about discussing any number of the issues the initial link brings up. The statement the young woman makes appears to have a couple of holes in it. How about taking another look and trying to find them? "... Do you think they would think the post "rubbish" if they had ever been on the receiving end of violence and killing? No, I don't think so either..." Obviously aimed at my first post in this thread. All I will reply to that is simply that you have no idea what I have or have not lived through softy, as I have no idea of what you have lived through. Violence and killing is not exclusive to the US. No comment on the "...God given right..."? |
|||||||||
|
Thank you, Softy. I think you make a good point and that, considering the hearing in which she finds herself, and her own role not only as a victim but as a representative, Suzanna does an efficient, yeomanlike job in credibly, even eloquently, presenting her views, grounded as they are in traumatic personal experience. |
|||||||||
|
change You seem to be of that class of people who like to arrogantly and condescendingly mock other peoples testimony... to find "holes" in it, and to discount it. I don't happen to think her nightmare is something to mock, nor do I think it shows any class. You were not looking to have a discussion, you were looking to mock, trivialize, and denigrate. You are pushing your anti-gun agenda, your anti-God agenda and you are someone who likes to arrogantly and condescendingly push your agenda by trivializing and denigrating others. I don't think you have a clue about being on the receiving end of violence or death. At least, it doesn't sound like it here. |
|||||||||
|
softy horror does not counteract another. For instance, what wasn't stated in the video is where the guy got his gun from, how he got it, what laws allowed him to, what state of mind he was in (relevant if the guy owned a gun legally!). The main point being that there should be no need to own guns in the first place, it didn't do the woman much good. The woman by the way stated quite clearly that gun ownership was to protect against the panellists, yes! That being the government. Not random nutcases! Was the guy who shot down everyone in the restaurant including the unfortunate woman's parents in cold blood a government employee, acting under orders, I don't think so. Just a random nutcase, yes? The arrogance is demanding by god given right the right to bear arms and own weapons that kill. Guns are only designed for one purpose, yes? The gun lobby really has lost the plot in terms of what that amendment really means. Case in point, thumper's banal postings about guns no right minded citizen would contemplate owning. Perhaps you could all be issued with the last one attached to attack helicopters as a right! Yes softy I do understand that the average guy owning a gun is not going to massacre his neighbours. The point there is that there are no safeguards reliable enough to stop guns getting into the hands of the nutters. By the way, unfortunately, I have had a loaded handgun shoved into my face at extremely close range by a nutter, terrifying, yes I sh** myself as well. I was very lucky to survive that encounter. I wouldn't wish one on anyone else, ever. |
|||||||||
|
Or you are incapable of explaining it clearly. Come on softy, stop talking in riddles and explain this flawless argument of yours, you might even convince me that everyone has the right to own a minigun! |
|||||||||
|
the right to bear arms for the restraint of oppression, and for self-preservation And with fire-arms, it's not about the right to own a gun, it's about the right to bear fire-arms. As Law Professor David Vandercoy points out in his study of the origins and intention of the Second Amendment, <<"When Blackstone spoke of the rights of persons, he defined such rights as being either: 1) absolute, that is belonging to the person whether out of society or in it; or 2) relative, meaning the right is an incident of membership in society. "Blackstone described the right to keep arms as absolute or belonging to the individual, but ascribed both public and private purposes to the right. The public purpose was resistance to restrain the violence of oppression; the private was self-preservation. "Blackstone described this right as necessary to secure the actual enjoyment of other rights which would otherwise be in vain if protected only by the dead letter of the laws." >> On this issue, I side with Softy in defense of the Second Amendment's clear statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
Log in 
