will americans fight to keep their se...

WILL AMERICANS FIGHT TO KEEP THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

Created by DON W SOUTH on Jan 8, 2013

84 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES, It's in the American DNA

NO & the Left Knows It

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“ +IAN, AMERICAN, OHIOAN, BELLE”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#1 Jan 8, 2013
From "THE WESTERN CENTER for JOURNALISM"
The Left Is Convinced Americans Won’t Fight For 2nd Amendment Rights
January 7, 2013 By Doug Book
Once cowed at the thought of provoking Second Amendment supporters, leftists will soon attempt to ban “assault weapons”(and much more) as legislation offered by Dianne Feinstein makes its way to the Senate floor. It seems that D.C. liberals have finally become convinced that American gun owners are too cowardly, too lazy or too dependent upon the generosity of Big Brother to fight for their Second Amendment rights.

During the past four years, the gun banning-Left have watched as American buyers broke sales records in the purchase of semi-automatic rifles. Opting for these and other powerful, efficient weapons, it is estimated that some 100 million private citizens are now in possession of over 300 million firearms. And these numbers continue to grow with each passing month.

Yet it’s against this backdrop of America’s unprecedented determination to assert the fundamental permanence of Second Amendment guarantees that Diane Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama and others will choose to implement gun bans, demand the federal registration of firearms, and even legislate outright confiscation.

Maybe Democrats are confident that fallout from Sandy Hook will provide the floor votes necessary to disarm the American people. But if the Left is willing to risk picking this fight with millions of American gun owners, it must also believe something far more important—that Americans who have spent years arming themselves against the ultimate expression of tyranny by their own government–the overthrow of the Second Amendment– will choose to not fight when the time finally comes.

For decades, the Left have watched Americans simply “lie down” before every imaginable outrage and legislative assault on our liberty. The Constitution has been prostituted by power-hungry, America-hating Marxists in Congress, on the federal bench and in the White House. Elected officials have laughed when asked to provide Constitutional authority for the passage of massively unpopular pieces of legislation. Tax dollars are insolently manipulated to purchase votes, grease the skids of questionable legislation, and add to the wealth of bureaucrats and elected officials. And through it all, Americans are robbed of more and more liberty as we do nothing but “vote ‘em in and cuss ‘em out” every two years.

Liberals have come to depend upon the willingness of Americans to subordinate their desire for liberty to the wishes and whims of the political ruling class. The cowardly are rewarded for relenting while those with the courage to question dictatorial authority and refuse to submit are accused of domestic terrorism. And all who press their own beliefs—or worse, those of the nations’ Founders– are met with ridicule or intimidation in what was at one time a nation of free, thinking individuals.

In short, the Left has come to expect cowardice or disinterested submission from a people trained for decades to accept as given that the good intentions of their elected betters are sufficient to fulfill the requirements of constitutional authority. And it’s a safe bet neither Democrats nor RINO’s will expect anything different from the majority of Americans this time around as Feinstein and Company legislate last rites and a funeral for the Second Amendment.

We know what the Left believe. We’ll soon find out if they are right.
Lady Glock

Buckland, OH

#2 Jan 8, 2013
We fought against the tyranny of British rule long ago and fighting our own government for our rights will be no different. I will keep my guns. This issue will get ugly before it's settled.

“Move and the way will open”

Since: Dec 12

Zenville

#3 Jan 8, 2013
Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action'

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."

Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

McChrystal, though he resigned in disgrace in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article, is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo.

"I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don't think that's enough," he said.

Asked what his message was to the National Rifle Association and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, "I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don't think we're a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a co-founder and backer of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, praised McChrystal later in the program. "Stanley McChrystal is a guy who has more crediblity than I ever will have in terms of guns and the damage that guns can do," he said. "He's devoted his life to public service. But Stanley McChrystal can be as good a spokesman as can the five of us."

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4 Jan 8, 2013
Oh, this just ticks me off...McChrystal? Now he's a poster child for gun control??

First of all...do you remember Pat Tillman? The one time Arizona Cardinal who became an Army Ranger and was killed by friendly fire? And our own government tried to cover it up? 

Well, McChrystal was instrumental in the cover up.....most on the left hated him, then.

And, from a June 22, 2010 Slate.com article by Fred Caplan about McChrystal and his aides on the Obama administration:
One aide calls Gen. Jim Jones, Obama's national security adviser, a "clown" who's "stuck in 1985." Another makes a word play on "Biden" and "bite me." Another says that "the Boss" (i.e., McChrystal) was "pretty disappointed" by his first meeting with the president. McChrystal himself moans when he gets an e-mail from Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and doesn't even bother reading its contents.

....most on the left hated him then, too.

Oh, and let's not forget, "Let's Draft Our Kids."...... "I think we ought to have a draft. I think if a nation goes to war, it shouldn't be solely be represented by a professional force, because it gets to be unrepresentative of the population…I think if a nation goes to war, every town, every city needs to be at risk. You make that decision and everybody has skin in the game."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/opinion/let...

........and we all loved him for that one, right?

So, now you want to listen to him on gun control?

Be my guest.

Hypocrites.
Sandie

Bellefontaine, OH

#5 Jan 8, 2013
Aren't you republicans totally omitting a basic fact? No one is trying to take away your guns, but there needs to be stiffer legislation against owning these military style semi-automatic weapons. It's pretty damn bad when regular police departments can be out-gunned! No civilian needs a weapon like that---period!

“Move and the way will open”

Since: Dec 12

Zenville

#6 Jan 8, 2013
Sandie wrote:
Aren't you republicans totally omitting a basic fact? No one is trying to take away your guns, but there needs to be stiffer legislation against owning these military style semi-automatic weapons. It's pretty damn bad when regular police departments can be out-gunned! No civilian needs a weapon like that---period!
I've never seen a more paranoid bunch of people.
animal control

Edison, OH

#7 Jan 8, 2013
nope
animal control

Edison, OH

#8 Jan 8, 2013
fagjimmy kimmy jimmel, jiss took over the 11:3o niteline time slot....Baby!

go figure

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#9 Jan 8, 2013
Zen Dude wrote:
<quoted text> I've never seen a more paranoid bunch of people.
Paranoid? No. And I am only speaking for myself, here. Certain people seem to want to lump everyone into one group or the other. I only speak to what I personally feel. So if you were not referring to my post when you made your paranoid comment, just ignore the rest of mine.....

You feel it's paranoid to point out the inconsistencies in the public statements of a man like McChrystal, and cannot respond intelligently other than to cast aspersions? Why?
Sandie

Bellefontaine, OH

#10 Jan 8, 2013
Ethel K wrote:
Oh, this just ticks me off...McChrystal? Now he's a poster child for gun control??
First of all...do you remember Pat Tillman? The one time Arizona Cardinal who became an Army Ranger and was killed by friendly fire? And our own government tried to cover it up? 
Well, McChrystal was instrumental in the cover up.....most on the left hated him, then.
And, from a June 22, 2010 Slate.com article by Fred Caplan about McChrystal and his aides on the Obama administration:
One aide calls Gen. Jim Jones, Obama's national security adviser, a "clown" who's "stuck in 1985." Another makes a word play on "Biden" and "bite me." Another says that "the Boss" (i.e., McChrystal) was "pretty disappointed" by his first meeting with the president. McChrystal himself moans when he gets an e-mail from Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and doesn't even bother reading its contents.
....most on the left hated him then, too.
Oh, and let's not forget, "Let's Draft Our Kids."...... "I think we ought to have a draft. I think if a nation goes to war, it shouldn't be solely be represented by a professional force, because it gets to be unrepresentative of the population…I think if a nation goes to war, every town, every city needs to be at risk. You make that decision and everybody has skin in the game."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/opinion/let...
........and we all loved him for that one, right?
So, now you want to listen to him on gun control?
Be my guest.
Hypocrites.
Is it necessary that one must agree with and approve of everything he has done or stood for in the past to fully agree with his statement about these semi-automatic weapons that some civilians think they should be able to collect?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#11 Jan 8, 2013
And, Sandie, I have no idea if you are commenting on my post when you say, "you republicans." I hope not.

I was responding to the paste on the dishonest McChrystal by Zen Dude. Only.

But, your post is kind of funny...."no one is trying to take away your guns."

Really?

“Move and the way will open”

Since: Dec 12

Zenville

#12 Jan 8, 2013
Ethel K wrote:
<quoted text>
Paranoid? No. And I am only speaking for myself, here. Certain people seem to want to lump everyone into one group or the other. I only speak to what I personally feel. So if you were not referring to my post when you made your paranoid comment, just ignore the rest of mine.....
You feel it's paranoid to point out the inconsistencies in the public statements of a man like McChrystal, and cannot respond intelligently other than to cast aspersions? Why?
If you thought I was referring to what you said, maybe you are paranoid.

I'm pretty sure that McChrystal knows more about weaponry than anyone who visits this forum, so I would call him an expert.

I will not quote some right wing fanatical gun nut like some do. This situation needs to be addressed by rational level headed people. Sensible people know that the government is not out to take our guns and if they did I don't care how many guns we had we would not stand a chance against the US Military.

These people are delusional drama queens.

Let me ask you this. Who has more of a right to be dramatic, those who lost their loved ones to gun violence or those who hoard weapons?
Sandie

Bellefontaine, OH

#13 Jan 8, 2013
I think both the Zen Dude and I posted before your post had even appeared. And no, keep your guns for protection and hunting. I own a couple myself.
What most of us want is to keep guns out of the hands of some people who's intent is to kill People. These semi-automatics were designed to kill many people in a matter of seconds.

Keep your gun to kill game or protect your home if you want. But what you do not need is a gun that is a Military weapon that's designed for war. I do not understand why people are protesting against making these so accessible to anyone. As a responsible gun owener, I do not think it impositions me in the least to have a background check, to register my weapons, and go through a waiting period. Do you?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#14 Jan 8, 2013
Sandie wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it necessary that one must agree with and approve of everything he has done or stood for in the past to fully agree with his statement about these semi-automatic weapons that some civilians think they should be able to collect?
If he has not already proven he is a dishonest and traitorous American in a position undeserving, then, no.
Sandie

Bellefontaine, OH

#15 Jan 8, 2013
The 2d Amendment does NOT Condone random slaughter
By davidswanson - Posted on 15 December 2012

By Harvey Wasserman

The Second Amendment does NOT guarantee the right of any and all citizens to own any and all kinds of guns.

It DEMANDS, in the name of national security, that we regulate it.

NEVER let assertions of the so-called "sanctity" of the 2d Amendment bully you into thinking it guarantees unregulated weapon ownership.

It does NOT.

Contrary to the propaganda perpetrated by the gun lobby, the 2d Amendment is the most heavily modified, curbed, explained, complex and contradictory of all the first ten Amendments.

The slaughter of small children along with teachers, a principle and so many other innocents was the furthest thing from James Madison's mind when he wrote the Bill of Rights.

He compiled it from a wide range of documents, including the Bills of Rights of Virginia (co-written with Thomas Jefferson) and other states to pacify the new nation's grassroots abhorrence of a strong federal government. If our basic rights were not clearly and explicitly guaranteed, Americans were ready to rise up for a second revolution.

The First Amendment, the greatest of them all, guaranteed our basic intellectual freedoms. The 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th set the foundations (and limitations) of our criminal justice system. The 7th had to do with the civil courts. The 9th and 10th guaranteed a range of rights to the states and the people.

The 3d had to do with quartering troops.

But the 2d was politically complex. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has argued that Madison's real intent was not to guarantee all individuals a right to gun ownership, but to assure the states that the federal government would not disband their militias.

Thus it's the only Amendment that comes with an apologia, a rationale:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....

The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.

But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: WELL-REGULATED.

Why? Because to be of any value to a free state, a militia---a citizen army---must be organized. It can't be a bunch of free-lancers running around with uncontrolled weapons, killing whomever they please.

And what's the goal?

SECURITY, as explicitly as Madison could make it.

That means safe not only from foreign invaders, but from unconstrained gun bearers killing small children, theater-goers, presidents, civil rights leaders, rock stars, random bystanders and whomever else they feel like with every whim.

Now we have once again come to know that too many of those within our midst, bearing weapons without constraint, pose the greatest threat of all to the security of our free state.

If we are INSECURE in the belief that we can send our children to an elementary school and not have them killed, then we are SECURE in absolutely nothing.
Sandie

Bellefontaine, OH

#16 Jan 8, 2013
Guns kill people, and guns in the hands of crazy people kill children....and so many others....and we have seen the reality of this far too often not to act.

It has become clearly "necessary to the security of a free state" that the right to bear arms must be "well-regulated," as in an organized militia.

As a nation, society and species, how many more times do we have to be shown that we are not yet highly enough evolved to allow guns in the hands of anyone who wants them?

But what about:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It comes, as noted, heavily pre-modified.

AND, it does NOT say "all people" or "any person" or "all citizens" or "any American" has the unrestricted right to own firearms.

It says THE people.

Attorney James Madison, revolutionary lawyer, visionary and genius, was nothing if not precise with his language. His Bill of Rights is as great a literary and legal masterwork as has ever been written.

Madison knew exactly what he said: THE people.

That does NOT mean every individual. It means THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE.

It is US, as a community, as THE people, that has the right to bear arms. Even to maintain militias.

But we, as a sane society, have the right---the RESPONSIBILITY---to well-regulate the ownership of guns.
To those who would say we need them to protect ourselves against government intrusion, we must respond by doing the obvious:

CEASE allowing this government to be an insanely weaponized threat to our personal security, and to that of so many others around the world.

A free state is not secured by an armed-to-the-teeth populace holding at bay an armed-beyond-belief government.

If you worry about the overbearing power of our own government, then stop it from spending more on war than rest of the world combined.

Since the Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791, our libraries have rightly filled with legal opinions, court briefs, pleadings, arguments, speeches, impassioned tomes epithet-filled accusations and so much more.

As per the First Amendment, we all have a natural, welcome right to our opinions.

But we have a DUTY to secure a free state. And that starts with protecting our children.

As a nation, we are largely isolated in our lack of gun regulation. It is done throughout the world in civilized nations at least as free as ours.

It's not perfect. But it's done, in countries thus far more secure from random, senseless gun violence than ours.

We cannot afford to let yet another horrific slaughter go by unanswered.

That means slashing the power of the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby.

That means GUN REGULATION. In whatever sustainable form will stop this nightmare from repeating itself over and over and over again.

No more shrugging our shoulders and saying "no, we can't."

National security, the law, the Constitution, the Second Amendment, common sense, parental responsibility, the need to survive...they are all on our side.

We can win this. These children must not have died in vain. This corner must be turned.

NOW!!!

http://warisacrime.org/content/2d-amendment-d...
Sandie

Bellefontaine, OH

#17 Jan 8, 2013
Well shoot....it posted the 2nd half of the article first. So---here;s the first half again..........

The 2d Amendment does NOT Condone random slaughter
By davidswanson - Posted on 15 December 2012

By Harvey Wasserman

The Second Amendment does NOT guarantee the right of any and all citizens to own any and all kinds of guns.

It DEMANDS, in the name of national security, that we regulate it.

NEVER let assertions of the so-called "sanctity" of the 2d Amendment bully you into thinking it guarantees unregulated weapon ownership.

It does NOT.

Contrary to the propaganda perpetrated by the gun lobby, the 2d Amendment is the most heavily modified, curbed, explained, complex and contradictory of all the first ten Amendments.

The slaughter of small children along with teachers, a principle and so many other innocents was the furthest thing from James Madison's mind when he wrote the Bill of Rights.

He compiled it from a wide range of documents, including the Bills of Rights of Virginia (co-written with Thomas Jefferson) and other states to pacify the new nation's grassroots abhorrence of a strong federal government. If our basic rights were not clearly and explicitly guaranteed, Americans were ready to rise up for a second revolution.

The First Amendment, the greatest of them all, guaranteed our basic intellectual freedoms. The 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th set the foundations (and limitations) of our criminal justice system. The 7th had to do with the civil courts. The 9th and 10th guaranteed a range of rights to the states and the people.

The 3d had to do with quartering troops.

But the 2d was politically complex. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has argued that Madison's real intent was not to guarantee all individuals a right to gun ownership, but to assure the states that the federal government would not disband their militias.

Thus it's the only Amendment that comes with an apologia, a rationale:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....

The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.

But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: WELL-REGULATED.

Why? Because to be of any value to a free state, a militia---a citizen army---must be organized. It can't be a bunch of free-lancers running around with uncontrolled weapons, killing whomever they please.

And what's the goal?

SECURITY, as explicitly as Madison could make it.

That means safe not only from foreign invaders, but from unconstrained gun bearers killing small children, theater-goers, presidents, civil rights leaders, rock stars, random bystanders and whomever else they feel like with every whim.

Now we have once again come to know that too many of those within our midst, bearing weapons without constraint, pose the greatest threat of all to the security of our free state.

If we are INSECURE in the belief that we can send our children to an elementary school and not have them killed, then we are SECURE in absolutely nothing.

“Move and the way will open”

Since: Dec 12

Zenville

#18 Jan 8, 2013
Ethel K wrote:
<quoted text>
If he has not already proven he is a dishonest and traitorous American in a position undeserving, then, no.
I'm not aware of any dishonesty, it seems to me his biggest crime was being too honest. He criticized his superiors and the POTUS while serving as a commander of US troops in war time. He was irresponsible,lacked good judgement and deserved to be booted but I wouldn't call him a traitor.
Sandie

Bellefontaine, OH

#19 Jan 8, 2013
Ethel K wrote:
<quoted text>
If he has not already proven he is a dishonest and traitorous American in a position undeserving, then, no.
I take it that you never liked him?

Sorry for the double post on the first part of my article.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#20 Jan 8, 2013
Zen Dude wrote:
<quoted text> If you thought I was referring to what you said, maybe you are paranoid.
I'm pretty sure that McChrystal knows more about weaponry than anyone who visits this forum, so I would call him an expert.
I will not quote some right wing fanatical gun nut like some do. This situation needs to be addressed by rational level headed people. Sensible people know that the government is not out to take our guns and if they did I don't care how many guns we had we would not stand a chance against the US Military.
These people are delusional drama queens.
Let me ask you this. Who has more of a right to be dramatic, those who lost their loved ones to gun violence or those who hoard weapons?
Your question doesn't make much sense to me, sorry, but I will try to answer it anyway....I would think no one has a "right" to be dramatic, but rather one should strive to be sensible, fair and level-headed.

I feel great sympathy for those who have lost loved ones in any senseless act of violence, and there have been very, very many in recent years.

If you are attempting to ask if "hoarders" of weapons deserve sympathy....why would they?

It's not a question of gun owners versus families of violent crime, if that is what you are getting at.??

I am not sure who you refer to as "these people" who are delusional drama queens?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bellefontaine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CNN Ali Velshi destroys GOP Congressman lies ab... 4 hr Mein Fuhrer 66
Trump is yours.......Deal with it! 4 hr Mein Fuhrer 578
Local Politics Do you approve of Jim Jordan as Representative? (Dec '11) 15 hr Jordanians 116
Life Lesson's! 18 hr CALM STILL VOICE 307
IS the DEMOCRAT PARTY in DANGER of EXTINCTION? Fri Wong Dong 130
TO THOSE in DENIAL ABOUT A LIB/DEM/LEFT MEDIA: Fri Mein Trumpf 10
Boys driving 100mph Fri LCR 7

Bellefontaine Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bellefontaine Mortgages