Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

 

Gun Rights: When do we pick up arms and fight?
 

January 17, 2013

It was 2 a.m., raining hard and my Dolphin motorhome was leaking. I was a college kid with 18 hour days of school, work and racquetball, so it made sense to live in a motor home. It worked out well until the dripping began, so I found shelter at a strangely lit, abandoned gas station. I climbed on top of my motorhome equipped with a tube of silicone to fix the leak. There was a busy street in the distance, I felt safe to think I was visible to passing motorists but I grabbed my grandpa's old Remington handgun just the same. Half way through my repair, a man appeared under the light below me and approached my ladder with a menacing look in his eye. I told him to back off but he kept coming. I pulled out my gun, aimed right at him and repeated my orders. He froze and then quickly slinked off into the dark.

I read an article claiming weapons are rarely used in defense. On the contrary, it happens all the time. Was my story newsworthy? Would the camera crews roll up, microphones in hand? Did the world want to know exactly how close he came, how I held my gun and the puddle he left behind? Oh what a fascinating puddle, let's splash THAT all over the six o'clock news. No, my story is common, no blood, no headlines, but without God and my gun, I'm fairly certain I'd be just another missing person or dead body turning up. How many women were spared such an ending but didn't report it?

Another time I found myself walking a dark street, alone in a big city late at night, looking for a restaurant to catch up with my buddies. We were all unfamiliar with the area as we played racquetball tournaments all over the state. My last match went late into the night so I was trying to catch up to friends. Directions were hasty, the road was closed for construction, but I could see the restaurant a block away so I parked and walked past the equipment. A couple of men came out of the shadows and started trailing me. I stuck my hand in my purse and gripped the handle of my gun, was about to pull it but they seemed to read the move and suddenly stopped, muttered to each other and turned around. Criminals seem to be very astute at measuring their prey.

Is this newsworthy? No, but just because it's not sensational doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We live in a dangerous world with a false sense of security. The news will highlight ONE case of a missing person when there are tens of thousands missing under criminal or suspicious circumstances. Home invasions seem to be on the rise, but how would we know if we depend on the news?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" – Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." – Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188


As this is our forefather's intent, then we should be able to attain as much artillery as our military! As our legislators argue over what new restrictions to impose, I demand LESS! Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is only going to VICTIMIZE law abiding citizens. When someone is shooting at you, you do not throw down your guns!

Anti-gun politicians naively ask, "What does anyone need automatic guns for?" Do they really not realize the affront our government has become? The 2nd Amendment is already infringed, Pelosi laughs at the thought of adhering to the Constitution, Obama calls it a "negative charter of liberties" as he positions his executive pen, and an awakening America remembers what happens in emerging communist countries after people's guns are taken away.

If we don't need ID to vote, why do we need ID to purchase guns? If $6 to provide proof of citizenship impedes a person's right to vote, then why doesn't gun fees and licenses impede their right to bear arms? In fact, if we MUST provide Sandra Fluke her condoms, then I demand our government provide my ammo!

And yet.

I urge you, America, do not fight. We may have every legal reason to pick up arms and fight, but be at peace. When our founding fathers prayed and beseeched God for help, there was a future for America, a purpose. For generations we have been a Light on the hill, we have blanketed the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No other nation has sent out as many missionaries and charities in His name as America has. God had a purpose for us and gave us the opportunity to serve His Kingdom. But what has America become? For what purpose are we asking to be blessed? That Christians in other nations would continue to be brutally slaughtered as we fawn over Kim Kardashian? Slave markets, torture, the blood of the saints continually spilled while we, in America, care nothing except for our own pleasure? We are told to tolerate, our schools write in their standards to teach our children to compromise on everything, that there is no right or wrong, no good or bad, we throw down all understanding of God's heavenly Kingdom to trample it with secular humanism, applauding multiculturalists like Karen Armstrong who writes that "religion is manmade" in our textbooks and has set out to prove conclusively that Christianity is "bonkers" while applauding Islam. We pollute our children with made up fantasies that we evolved from primordial goo randomly, insist they repeat it as fact, warp their minds to atheist beliefs and then ask that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless our cause to regain this perversion called freedom? That modern America can continue on this path of inflicting the butcher of the unborn worldwide? That we can continue to spread pornography, homosexuality, Christian persecution in all four directions around the globe? What America has become in the past ten or twenty years, is that what we are asking God to uphold?

God told us through the prophets what is to come that we would believe and many of us have recognized the slow turn of the wheels which have begun. I believe we are being divided by the angels as they separate the wheat from the tares or weeds, indeed as they bundle the weeds for (future tense) burning (Matthew 13:30), but as is common in the Bible, it happens much more slowly than we expect. Did you wonder how we all seem to be so blind and deaf to each other's point of view, wonder how the other side cannot see what is obvious? I contend, this is why! They are being blinded as their time runs out, the separation is becoming distinct, depraved minds are falling deeper into their own depravity and they can't even comprehend they are falling.

And so our nation has fallen into decline. It is like we are all in a boat and certain ones among us insisted on boring holes in the bottom of that boat. We will all pay the consequences as we sink but God will not forget His own. When hunger comes, when chaos and thieving and unmitigated murder begins, we are to defend our families, our guns will be of use in the face of chaos, we are to have a sword! But just as there was a purpose for Christ laying down His life, when the law against Christians becomes the law of the land, we are to survive the chaos that we can then lay down our lives and give glory to God. For that we will be persecuted and killed. Some will wonder, "Where is God" but God is right here! Submit! Not to evil, but to God! Recognize that the end times are and will be upside down, that evil will be called good and good, evil; that much of what God told us is happening slowly. But have faith! Let not your heart be troubled for we were told of these things!

We will not win America back. Our choices will be: will we pick up our cross and follow Him or will we pick up arms and attempt to fight for a continuation of the liberal perversion of freedom, leaving a trail of blood behind us? Will we lay down our lives in the name of Christ? Saints, I think America has run it's course, and praise God for His blessing upon our nation that has brought so many worldwide to His Kingdom. Many of us are not ready to stop fighting for the cause, but I urge you, consider what that cause today truly is.

I will not fight to finance worldwide abortion mills, homosexuality, pedophilia, pornography, child slavery and everything that evil men have twisted "freedom" to mean. We have been corrupted from within and a darkness is coming, evil will appear to prevail but it will not succeed. We cannot fight this one world government that has already been laid out. We need to realize that it was foretold and keep faith. Hold your lamp high that all around you can see because your neighbors will need help in the coming days.

"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs – heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God." (Romans 8)

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/shroder/130117

by on Jan. 16, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Replies (41-50):
NewMom11222011
by Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM
3 moms liked this

I'm happy to see that one of us (you, by your own statement) has logical thinking skills.  What would we do without insights such as yours?

sarcasm


Quoting mikiemom:

Complete and utter bullshit as usual from this poster.

Logical thinking is a skill not possessed by too many of you.



blondekosmic15
by Blonde on Jan. 17, 2013 at 3:42 PM
3 moms liked this

 

Quoting The-Raven:

 

 

Quoting romalove:


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 

Quoting romalove:


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 You need ID to purchase many kinds of COUGH medicine...

You need a doctors prescrition for 800MG motrin...

I prefer the original Sudafed, with pseudoephedrine.  I'm asthmatic and my sinuses are a problem, and this makes a big difference to me.  They no longer have it out on the counters, you have to ask for it and sign for it and show picture ID because people were using it to make meth.

 so they target everyday citizens and treat them as if they were guilty...see? the argument fails..

If i sell my car today, I have to LEGALLY transfer the title ..why shouldnt the same be asked for a gun?

 

Have the proper paperwork and tasks done. Once you are ready to sell your vehicle, make sure you have all of the proper paperwork that is needed to transfer the title. Have all of your extra keys handy and your personal property out of the car. If you are accepting a check, be sure that it has cleared the bank before handing over the title. Make sure that you also give your customer a proper receipt with any notations that may be necessary such as writing down that the recipient knows of a certain repair and is fine with it.

 

The main difference here is that cars are not a constitutional right but guns are.

I think that's the issue with "control". 

That's why I say go after the ammo.  I read the constitution and there's not a peep about that.  :-)

Yeah, I'll bet you read the Constitution.  If you had, you'd know that the Second Amendment doesn't say "guns."  It says "arms."   And ammunition falls into a catetory of "arms." 

Moreover, it's important to remember the intent of the writers of the Constitution when you try to play with the words.  If you actually know something about the Constitution  you also know about the Federalist Papers, what what those documents were written to do.  You also know that history shows us what the framers meant by what they wrote. Logically, they lived by the laws of the day, the laws were governed by the framework of the Constitution.  Had they intended for any type of prohibition of arms we wouldn't have gone until the early 1900s before Congress first began to attempt to "adjust" the Second Amendment. 

The Second Amendment clearly states that no branch of government is allowed to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Obviously, and logically, if the government makes it difficult or impossible to obtain ammunition they make the associated firearms useless, and logically, that would infringe on the people's rights. 

But the most important point here is to ask why it is that with the country having over 20,000 individual federal, state, and local gun regulations, why it is that the Democrats cannot seem to find a single one they can point to as a success in reducing the rate of violent crime.  Instead, they use emotional appeals like "common sense controls," and dragging young children up to the desk as a way to distract people from the facts. 

The truth of the matter is that you're pursuing a totally illogical and unsubstantiated avenue of supposedly reducing violent crime.  Professor John Lott has done massive research on this issue, studying every single gun law in the country, county by county, as well as the associated per capita crime rates all across the nation.  And his research has shown that restricting the right of people to keep and bear arms actually increases the per capita rate of violent crime, and it puts women, the elderly, and the disabled it even more jeopardy than men. 

About 15 years ago a professor from Emory University (I won't mention his name, but it's easy to find) set out to attempt to disprove Lott's findings, and was discovered to have fabricated all his data.  As a result his career and reputation were destroyed.  But the important thing to remember is that this professor spent years trying to disprove Lott's conclusions, and he had to resort to inventing statistics to attempt to "disprove" Lott's conclusions. 

Gun control does not work to reduce violent crime, and it has never worked.  It hasn't worked in Great Britain, which essentially banned firearms for private citizens and afterward saw an explosion in violent crime that has now made Britain the most violent and dangerous nation in Europe. 

Gun control had the same effect in Australia. 

It simply doesn't work.  It's never worked.  It's a totally illogical and counterproductive method in reducing violent crime. The US has a wealth of statistical information that proves it.  Those states like Florida, which have led the country in increasing private ownership and concealed carry have also been national leaders in the reduction of violent crime...particularly against women.  And, cities like Chicago, which is one of the top three most restrictive cities in the country for private ownership and carry of firearms, has become the gun-murder capital of the US, setting an all-time high for murders of 536 in a single year in 2012, and is already on a pace to go well beyond the 700 murder mark for 2013. 

If you want yourself, your children, your family and your friends to be at greater risk of violence, just keep pushing the flawed theory of gun control.   

Using common sense and logic coupled with facts to address the gun legislation issue. Thank you...

Carpy
by Platinum Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 3:50 PM
One box of sudafed will make a shaker, 250 bucks. You are limited to two or three (forget which) boxes a month. Over purchasing is a crime.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting Carpy:

They still are. Street value is 50 bucks a box.



Quoting romalove:


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 You need ID to purchase many kinds of COUGH medicine...



You need a doctors prescrition for 800MG motrin...

I prefer the original Sudafed, with pseudoephedrine.  I'm asthmatic and my sinuses are a problem, and this makes a big difference to me.  They no longer have it out on the counters, you have to ask for it and sign for it and show picture ID because people were using it to make meth.

Really?

I buy a pack of 96 of the 4 hour tablets at the pharmacy for under 20 bucks, I can get the generic brand, whatever store I'm in.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
PamR
by Platinum Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM



Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting PamR:



Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting PamR:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting PamR:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting PamR:

WHO is suggesting that you can not have a gun to use for personal protection or for sport? 

No one.

Fear mongering.  You people live for it.  I have heard a number of sane republicans attempt to put distance between themselves and the crazy-ass survivalist faction of their party.  Keep it up because the tide has turned.  More Americans are now in favor of stricter controls on assault type weapons and on background checks.  Because reasonable people get it. 

 You are the blind leading the blind....

Really?  How so?  Be specific please.

You say you are a Christian Pam. Read the Bible. In the past I have addressed your responses many times only for you to come back to ask the same question again.

quote>

"it happens much more slowly than we expect"

One of your trademark non-answers - telling!  What does my religion have to do with gun rights?  What is so Christian about owning a weapon that's only use is to efficiently kill humans?  We're not talking about personal protection or hunting Bambi.  Why does Jesus want us to have assault weapons? 


Frankly Pam I'm tired of responding to you because I have added lengthy comments to you in the past...many times. Then you accuse me later of never answering your question. Sometimes you mock me with your liberal friends. Eventually I learned you are not really interested in an opposing view. Why does Jesus permit evil ppl to do evil deeds!? Yes, we are talking about the type of weapons these evil ppl. use against us....our children & loved ones. Criminals will continue to purchase these weapons irrespective of laws enacted for law abiding citizens who deserve to protect themselves and their families. This is our Constitutional right. The Founding Fathers were deeply concerned about this. Obama's proposals will not prevent a massacre in our schools. Not even a band aid on the problem. This admin is blind to the real root of this violence. Long lines thru out America waiting to enter gun shows reveals millions of Americans do contemplate reality. They understand what is happening. I have noticed many liberals { not all } fail to understand the true sense of evil we are facing. The same analogy applies to terrorism. Your Party tends to be soft on violence and the dangers in our communities. Progressive liberal Judges give light sentences to violent criminals everyday in this Country. Rapists, child molesters etc. It's like there's a disconnect from the real world, a blindness so to speak. If Jesus had his way, the world would be a 'gun free' zone but He sees the violence and hatred in ppl's hearts. He encourages us to love our neighbors as ourselves. In doing so, we will do everything in our power to protect our own bodies from harm and those we love, esp our children. Continue to support this President, Pam. History will repeat herself. This Nation will reap what it has sown~

"he that hath no
sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Luke 22:36~

If you're tired of responding, feel free to stop, Blo.  You ask to be mocked because your responses are so weird.  There is nothing remotely connected to religion in this topic.  I do want to protect our children, which is why I think there should be stronger restrictions on guns.  Which does not equal a ban, so you and your fellow wackadoos who are preparing from the COMING CIVIL WAR can still stockpile your bunker and wait for THE END.  The tide has turned against you, however.  While I know you read n' research, and talk to millions of Americans, most reasonable people, indeed, most NRA members, are now in favor of the stronger restrictions on guns.  So you just keep on memorizing scripture and throwing it out there like it actually means something to you.  Telling!

 Name calling reveals your heart, Pam. You will be ignored from now on.


Telling!

No matter how you or anyone attempts to pervert this into a religion issue, it's a fail.  No one is attempting to do anything EXCEPT enact common sense laws that will help make our children safer.  Twisting reigion to suit your purpose is not going to help.

PamR
by Platinum Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM



Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

."One may well ask," wrote King, "‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer "is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: just laws… and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws," King said, but "conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.""AN UNJUST LAW IS NO LAW AT ALL"How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law, King wrote, "squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law… is out of harmony with the moral law."Then King quoted Augustine: "An unjust law is no law at all." He quoted Thomas Aquinas: "An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.

*Martin Luther King Jr*

Martin Luther King was a pacifist.  How can you try to bring him into a gun debate on the side of guns?

The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

This week, people were shocked when the Drudge Report posted a giant picture of Hitler over a headline speculating that the White House will proceed with executive orders to limit access to firearms. The proposed orders are exceedingly tame, but Drudge’s reaction is actually a common conservative response to any invocation of gun control.

The NRA, Fox News, Fox News (again), Alex Jones, email chains, Joe “the Plumber” WurzelbacherGun Owners of America, etc., all agree that gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (“America’s most aggressive defender of firearms ownership”) is built almost exclusively around this notion, popularizing posters of Hitler giving the Nazi salute next to the text: “All in favor of ‘gun control’ raise your right hand.”

In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).

Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon.

Proponents of the theory sometimes point to the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as evidence that, as Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano put it, “those able to hold onto their arms and their basic right to self-defense were much more successful in resisting the Nazi genocide.” But as the Tablet’s Michael Moynihan points out, Napolitano’s history (curiously based on a citation of work by French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson) is a bit off. In reality, only about 20 Germans were killed, while some 13,000 Jews were massacred. The remaining 50,000 who survived were promptly sent off to concentration camps.

Robert Spitzer, a political scientist who studies gun politics and chairs the political science department at SUNY Cortland, told Mother Jones’ Gavin Aronsen that the prohibition on Jewish gun ownership was merely a symptom, not the problem itself. “[It] wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group,” he explained.

Meanwhile, much of the Hitler myth is based on an infamous quote falsely attributed to the Fuhrer, which extols the virtue of gun control:

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

The quote has been widely reproduced in blog posts and opinion columns about gun control, but it’s “probably a fraud and was likely never uttered,” according to Harcourt. “This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect,” researchers at the useful website GunCite note.

“As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”

Bartov added that this misreading of history is not only intellectually dishonest, but also dangerous.  “I happen to have been a combat soldier and officer in the Israeli Defense Forces and I know what these assault rifles can do,” he said in an email.

He continued: “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”


Mystres
by Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 4:26 PM
3 moms liked this


ACTUALLY revolutions is VERY American.

The American Revolution was a political upheaval during the last half of the 18th century in which thirteen colonies in North America joined together to break from the British Empire

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 The psychotic right

talking about bloody revolutions again

how very unamerican



sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 4:46 PM
To gain our independence

Now it would ruin our country and kill citizens, you want that?


Quoting Mystres:


ACTUALLY revolutions is VERY American.

The American Revolution was a political upheaval during the last half of the 18th century in which thirteen colonies in North America joined together to break from the British Empire


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 The psychotic right


talking about bloody revolutions again


how very unamerican




Posted on CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM
In that case you shouldn't own a gun unless you a part of a well regulated militia

So, individuals can either own guns with SCOTUS upheld restrictions or they must be a member of a well regulated militia

You pick

I know you were trying to be insulting but your logic was an epic fail so ill just bless your wittle heart and pat your head...on your way now


Quoting The-Raven:

 




Quoting sweet-a-kins:


 


Quoting romalove:




Quoting sweet-a-kins:


 


Quoting romalove:




Quoting sweet-a-kins:


 You need ID to purchase many kinds of COUGH medicine...


You need a doctors prescrition for 800MG motrin...


I prefer the original Sudafed, with pseudoephedrine.  I'm asthmatic and my sinuses are a problem, and this makes a big difference to me.  They no longer have it out on the counters, you have to ask for it and sign for it and show picture ID because people were using it to make meth.


 so they target everyday citizens and treat them as if they were guilty...see? the argument fails..


If i sell my car today, I have to LEGALLY transfer the title ..why shouldnt the same be asked for a gun?


 


Have the proper paperwork and tasks done. Once you are ready to sell your vehicle, make sure you have all of the proper paperwork that is needed to transfer the title. Have all of your extra keys handy and your personal property out of the car. If you are accepting a check, be sure that it has cleared the bank before handing over the title. Make sure that you also give your customer a proper receipt with any notations that may be necessary such as writing down that the recipient knows of a certain repair and is fine with it.


 



The main difference here is that cars are not a constitutional right but guns are.


I think that's the issue with "control". 


That's why I say go after the ammo.  I read the constitution and there's not a peep about that.  :-)


 Well REGULATED means just that,,,it CAN LEGALLY be regulated.


 


 


OMG...you're serious!

See if you can find yourself a sixth grade English student to explain to you why its ridiculously obvious that the word "regulated" is referring to "the militia," being regulated, and not the "arms."   


 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Jan. 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM


Quoting The-Raven:



Quoting romalove:


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 

Quoting romalove:


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 You need ID to purchase many kinds of COUGH medicine...

You need a doctors prescrition for 800MG motrin...

I prefer the original Sudafed, with pseudoephedrine.  I'm asthmatic and my sinuses are a problem, and this makes a big difference to me.  They no longer have it out on the counters, you have to ask for it and sign for it and show picture ID because people were using it to make meth.

 so they target everyday citizens and treat them as if they were guilty...see? the argument fails..

If i sell my car today, I have to LEGALLY transfer the title ..why shouldnt the same be asked for a gun?

 

Have the proper paperwork and tasks done. Once you are ready to sell your vehicle, make sure you have all of the proper paperwork that is needed to transfer the title. Have all of your extra keys handy and your personal property out of the car. If you are accepting a check, be sure that it has cleared the bank before handing over the title. Make sure that you also give your customer a proper receipt with any notations that may be necessary such as writing down that the recipient knows of a certain repair and is fine with it.


The main difference here is that cars are not a constitutional right but guns are.

I think that's the issue with "control". 

That's why I say go after the ammo.  I read the constitution and there's not a peep about that.  :-)

Yeah, I'll bet you read the Constitution.  If you had, you'd know that the Second Amendment doesn't say "guns."  It says "arms."   And ammunition falls into a catetory of "arms." 

Moreover, it's important to remember the intent of the writers of the Constitution when you try to play with the words.  If you actually know something about the Constitution  you also know about the Federalist Papers, what what those documents were written to do.  You also know that history shows us what the framers meant by what they wrote. Logically, they lived by the laws of the day, the laws were governed by the framework of the Constitution.  Had they intended for any type of prohibition of arms we wouldn't have gone until the early 1900s before Congress first began to attempt to "adjust" the Second Amendment. 

The Second Amendment clearly states that no branch of government is allowed to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Obviously, and logically, if the government makes it difficult or impossible to obtain ammunition they make the associated firearms useless, and logically, that would infringe on the people's rights. 

But the most important point here is to ask why it is that with the country having over 20,000 individual federal, state, and local gun regulations, why it is that the Democrats cannot seem to find a single one they can point to as a success in reducing the rate of violent crime.  Instead, they use emotional appeals like "common sense controls," and dragging young children up to the desk as a way to distract people from the facts. 

The truth of the matter is that you're pursuing a totally illogical and unsubstantiated avenue of supposedly reducing violent crime.  Professor John Lott has done massive research on this issue, studying every single gun law in the country, county by county, as well as the associated per capita crime rates all across the nation.  And his research has shown that without exception (at a 100% rate of repetition) restricting the right of people to keep and bear arms actually increases the per capita rate of violent crime, and it puts women, the elderly, and the disabled it even more jeopardy than men. 

About 15 years ago a professor from Emory University (I won't mention his name, but it's easy to find) set out to attempt to disprove Lott's findings, and was discovered to have fabricated all his data.  As a result his career and reputation were destroyed.  But the important thing to remember is that this professor spent years trying to disprove Lott's conclusions, and he had to resort to inventing statistics to attempt to "disprove" Lott's conclusions. 

Gun control does not work to reduce violent crime, and it has never worked.  It hasn't worked in Great Britain, which essentially banned firearms for private citizens and afterward saw an explosion in violent crime that has now made Britain the most violent and dangerous nation in Europe. 

Gun control had the same effect in Australia. 

It simply doesn't work.  It's never worked.  It's a totally illogical and counterproductive method in reducing violent crime. The US has a wealth of statistical information that proves it.  Those states like Florida, which have led the country in increasing private ownership and concealed carry have also been national leaders in the reduction of violent crime...particularly against women.  And, cities like Chicago, which is one of the top three most restrictive cities in the country for private ownership and carry of firearms, has become the gun-murder capital of the US, setting an all-time high for murders of 536 in a single year in 2012, and is already on a pace to go well beyond the 700 murder mark for 2013. 

If you want yourself, your children, your family and your friends to be at greater risk of violence, just keep pushing the flawed theory of gun control.   

I'll start with saying that insulting me is not the way to begin a conversation.

I am not against people owning guns, although they scare the crap out of me (the people who like them scare me too).  I do know that the framers of the Constitution were afraid of a government with guns and a populace without.  I also know they did not and could not know about the kinds of weaponry and ammunition we have available today.  

I have yet to meet anyone against gun control of any kind who had any clue how to get our crime rate down except to say "more guns".  Yes, arm everyone to the teeth and watch the crime rate fall.


Farmlady09
by Silver Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 4:54 PM
4 moms liked this

 So, you don't mind having your life and your choices controlled because of people who don't obey laws?

You're ok with that in spite of the fact that meth heads are still making the stuff, selling the stuff, and they still could care less about the laws?

You're ok with being completely inconvenienced and forced to do things that solve nothing?


Quoting romalove:


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 You need ID to purchase many kinds of COUGH medicine...

You need a doctors prescrition for 800MG motrin...

I prefer the original Sudafed, with pseudoephedrine.  I'm asthmatic and my sinuses are a problem, and this makes a big difference to me.  They no longer have it out on the counters, you have to ask for it and sign for it and show picture ID because people were using it to make meth.


 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN