Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 84

Thread: Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...#ixzz17vzeJtiE

    <snip>
    If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.


    <snip>
    "We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."



  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Nonsense...

    This should demonstrate that a one term O presidency may result in the court moving more in favor of individual liberties. Breyer and Ginsburg are both 72 and on the liberal wing. Ginsburg has had health issues in the past and may be seeking retirement in the next 6-10 years. A two term GOP president begining in 2012 may tip the scales by 2020.
    Live Free or Die!

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...#ixzz17vzeJtiE

    <snip>
    If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.


    <snip>
    "We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."



    After all, they are the Progressive ELITISTS who know all and we sheep simply know nothing. The people are to stupid to know that what we (progressives) are doing is for their own good.

    Yep, the Founding Fathers wanted gun control so much the 2nd amendment makes the case by stating...."... the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" (emphasis mine).

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    After all, they are the Progressive ELITISTS who know all and we sheep simply know nothing. The people are to stupid to know that what we (progressives) are doing is for their own good.

    Yep, the Founding Fathers wanted gun control so much the 2nd amendment makes the case by stating...."... the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" (emphasis mine).
    No but wait that is to be interpretative don't you know? (Sarcasm)

    The only problem is conservative make anti-liberty decisions too usually in favor of authority and control.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    No but wait that is to be interpretative don't you know? (Sarcasm)

    The only problem is conservative make anti-liberty decisions too usually in favor of authority and control.
    Not only that, but oft times they say one thing to get elected and do the opposite once they're in office. "An honest politician" is an oxymoron any more.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    This should demonstrate that a one term O presidency may result in the court moving more in favor of individual liberties. Breyer and Ginsburg are both 72 and on the liberal wing. Ginsburg has had health issues in the past and may be seeking retirement in the next 6-10 years. A two term GOP president begining in 2012 may tip the scales by 2020.

    The above quote is just packed with wishful thinking. There will be no (R) in the WH, not for at least six more years.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514
    I am all for gun control... where it does not infringe on a law abiding citizens right and ability to legally acquire a firearm.

    I have no problem keeping guns out of the hands of those society has deemed dangerous, mentally handicapped, or otherwise proven they should not be trusted with a weapon.

    Sadly the politicians see only one form of gun control...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by daddy4count View Post
    I am all for gun control... where it does not infringe on a law abiding citizens right and ability to legally acquire a firearm.

    I have no problem keeping guns out of the hands of those society has deemed dangerous, mentally handicapped, or otherwise proven they should not be trusted with a weapon.

    Sadly the politicians see only one form of gun control...
    Who in society gets to determine who is dangerious, mentally handicapped or should not be trusted with a weapon? You are already sliding down the slippery slope the only thing left to determine is how fast will you slide. Shall not be infringed, remember.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Fundamentally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by daddy4count View Post
    I am all for gun control... where it does not infringe on a law abiding citizens right and ability to legally acquire a firearm.

    I have no problem keeping guns out of the hands of those society has deemed dangerous, mentally handicapped, or otherwise proven they should not be trusted with a weapon.

    Sadly the politicians see only one form of gun control...
    Fundamentally wrong.

    I have no problem keeping those in society who are deemed dangerous, mentally hadicapped or otherwise proven they should not be trusted....

    ....OUT OF SOCIETY.
    Live Free or Die!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Fundamentally wrong.

    I have no problem keeping those in society who are deemed dangerous, mentally hadicapped or otherwise proven they should not be trusted....

    ....OUT OF SOCIETY.
    +1.

    If an individual is dangerous, they are so whether or not they are armed. It's not the tool that creates the danger.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    +1.

    If an individual is dangerous, they are so whether or not they are armed. It's not the tool that creates the danger.
    But it is the tool that aids in the degree of danger they are able to be. A crazed maniac with a butter knife is less lethal that a crazed maniac armed with an AR. The person creates the danger but the tool they choose to use determines how dangerous they are actually going to be.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-13-2010 at 10:01 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    But it is the tool that aids in the degree of danger they are able to be. A crazed maniac with a butter knife is less lethal that a crazed maniac armed with an AR. The person creates the danger but the tool they choose to use determines how dangerous they are actually going to be.
    Yet it is not the tool that makes them dangerous. A crazed maniac behind the wheel of a bus could do more damage than crazed maniacs with an AR & Butcher knife combined. IF the person is a danger, they should not be in society.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Yet it is not the tool that makes them dangerous. A crazed maniac behind the wheel of a bus could do more damage than crazed maniacs with an AR & Butcher knife combined. IF the person is a danger, they should not be in society.
    I agree! Just reading in the times, a man that has been attacking women in the park...All of these nonsense laws and I have a .20 cent solution...heck...10 cents if we reload!
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I agree! Just reading in the times, a man that has been attacking women in the park...All of these nonsense laws and I have a .20 cent solution...heck...10 cents if we reload!
    I would support legislation that also makes the criminal financially liable for any expense incurred by the victim in the victim's own defense including projectiles expended, payable by the criminal's "estate" upon his demise in the act. Could be a problem tho if you hit him with a Ming vase....
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    I would support legislation that also makes the criminal financially liable for any expense incurred by the victim in the victim's own defense including projectiles expended, payable by the criminal's "estate" upon his demise in the act. Could be a problem tho if you hit him with a Ming vase....

    Probably save the fine china for the feast that follows. Successful self-defense situations should be celebrated.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    But it is the tool that aids in the degree of danger they are able to be. A crazed maniac with a butter knife is less lethal that a crazed maniac armed with an AR. The person creates the danger but the tool they choose to use determines how dangerous they are actually going to be.
    I would support that view if anyone can come up with a law that has actually prevented a criminal from getting a gun. Until we can find one that prevents crime, the only solution I can see is to remove the person from society also.

  17. #17
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    This should demonstrate that a one term O presidency may result in the court moving more in favor of individual liberties. Breyer and Ginsburg are both 72 and on the liberal wing. Ginsburg has had health issues in the past and may be seeking retirement in the next 6-10 years. A two term GOP president begining in 2012 may tip the scales by 2020.
    Unless one of these Justices also notice what you are pointing out. They may well decide to resign so BO can keep the current "balance" on the Court by appointing another "Liberal Moron". Ginsburg may have another "medical emergency" and decide to resign while she's sure her replacement will be selected by another 'looney liberal' like her.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayd1981 View Post
    I would support that view if anyone can come up with a law that has actually prevented a criminal from getting a gun. Until we can find one that prevents crime, the only solution I can see is to remove the person from society also.
    There are several laws that have prevented criminals from getting guns. It's often those so called "law abiding citizens" that go around the law to make a little profit that result in many criminals getting guns. Not all guns in the possession of criminals were stolen.

    Look at recent news here in the Puget Sound area. The law would have kept guns away from criminals IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

    The "Instant Check" (which is part of a law) does stop criminals from purchasing guns from legitimate sources. Between November 1998 and November 2010, over 800,000 sales were denied to various "restricted" parties.

    [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/denials-1?12[/url


    At this point you might say that the law didn't prevent anything. When denied, they just look for someone to make a "Straw Purchase" or they go looking for another "Handlebar Dave". Not a fault with the law, just a fault with those who's greed suppresses their common sense. Not all of those 800,000 were successful in finding "other sources" and those who did, there are other laws in place. Felon in Possession of Firearm laws enhance the penalty for those who are caught committing more crimes.

    For those who would like to see ALL Gun Laws repealed, be careful what you wish for. There is always the law of "Unintended Consequences" waiting to bite you (and the rest of us) in the @$$.

    Laws aren't 100% in preventing an action. It's illegal to cheat on your taxes and yet people do. The fact that there laws against it, and the penalties are severe, keep the majority of people from doing so. Likewise for Speeding, Leashing your Dog, and not parking in front of fire hydrants. Laws are passed because not everyone can use common sense.
    Last edited by amlevin; 12-14-2010 at 12:37 PM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    No but wait that is to be interpretative don't you know? (Sarcasm)

    The only problem is conservative make anti-liberty decisions too usually in favor of authority and control.
    This is why we aren't looking for "conservative" judges vs "liberal" judges. We are looking for judges who will follow original intent.

    Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent piece called Judicial Activism Reconsidered in which he discusses the writings of Blackstone and Holmes on how and when to "interpret" the Constitution. The main thrust of their arguments was that if the meaning of the words is clear "according to the definitions and common understanding of the words at the time of the writing of the article or legislation" then NO interpretation is needed. Doesn't matter what they were thinking, just what they wrote. Only if the meaning was unclear was a justice to try to determine from context the meaning of the statute, and only if that meaning was still unclear was the motivation of the legislators to be used to attempt to divine context. Blackstone laid out a hierarchy of steps that he felt should be used in any analysis of legislation.

    If judges, conservative or liberal, would rule by original intent I wouldn't care by whom they were nominated or what their personal views were. Holmes frequently ruled against actions by people who he had supported in their elective bids because he understood that it was his knowledge of the law, not his beliefs that were relevant to his position on the bench.

    If you want to read the article you can download or read it here Judicial Activism Reconsidered

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The "Instant Check" (which is part of a law) does stop criminals from purchasing guns from legitimate sources. Between November 1998 and November 2010, over 800,000 sales were denied to various "restricted" parties.
    Any idea how many of those 800,000 were people who are allowed to own firearms but an error on the part of the NICS system falsely denied their application? You cite a statistic from the FBI's website on use of the NICS system, but I have seen other figures that suggest that a significant number of those 800,000 were denied incorrectly and later allowed to purchase their firearms. Just can't remember where I saw that info or how many it was.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Look at recent news here in the Puget Sound area. The law would have kept guns away from criminals IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.
    If the laws were followed there wouldn't be any criminals. I think we have established that criminals DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW. And thus without the law being followed, it then has no effect on preventing criminal behavior.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    There are several laws that have prevented criminals from getting guns. It's often those so called "law abiding citizens" that go around the law to make a little profit that result in many criminals getting guns. Not all guns in the possession of criminals were stolen.
    Excuse me, sir, but your statism is showing.

    Look at recent news here in the Puget Sound area. The law would have kept guns away from criminals IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.
    Yes, and laws against murder would prevent criminal homicide IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED. At least a law against murder is justifiable from a natural perspective, because it prohibits and punishes an act that actually harms persons or property - the reason for having government and law in the first place! Selling a person a tool does not harm persons or property.

    The "Instant Check" (which is part of a law) does stop criminals from purchasing guns from legitimate sources. Between November 1998 and November 2010, over 800,000 sales were denied to various "restricted" parties.
    [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/denials-1?12[/url
    So, are you saying that any purchase of a gun from someone who hasn't prostrated himself, kissed the ring, and rendered unto Caesar to obtain a FFL is "illegitimate?" Part of the inherent right to property is the ability to dispose of your property as you see fit, as long as no fraud or deception is involved. That means being able to sell what is yours to whoever you damn well please. I have bought guns from people without exchanging so much as a phone number, much less any sort of ID, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

    At this point you might say that the law didn't prevent anything. When denied, they just look for someone to make a "Straw Purchase" or they go looking for another "Handlebar Dave". Not a fault with the law, just a fault with those who's greed suppresses their common sense. Not all of those 800,000 were successful in finding "other sources" and those who did, there are other laws in place. Felon in Possession of Firearm laws enhance the penalty for those who are caught committing more crimes.
    While you have no way of knowing how many of those 800,000 who were denied were unsuccessful at obtaining a gun through other means (or how many were wrongly denied in the first place, something that happens more often than folks like to think), I do know that if a criminal is determined enough to get a gun, he will be successful, one way or the other. Since we have a law against felons possessing guns, why do we need to regulate sales? Since your premise is that laws work, won't the felons willingly not attempt to acquire weapons?

    For those who would like to see ALL Gun Laws repealed, be careful what you wish for. There is always the law of "Unintended Consequences" waiting to bite you (and the rest of us) in the @$$.
    It seemed to work out fine for the first half of this country's history. At that time, a private citizen (or group of citizens) could own as big of a cannon (the most destructive military weapon of the time) as his budget would allow.

    Laws aren't 100% in preventing an action. It's illegal to cheat on your taxes and yet people do. The fact that there laws against it, and the penalties are severe, keep the majority of people from doing so. Likewise for Speeding, Leashing your Dog, and not parking in front of fire hydrants. Laws are passed because not everyone can use common sense.
    I tend to believe that the vast majority of people are basically good, and will do the right thing whether or not there is a law and a punishment in place. Again, it goes back to the foundational American principle of the purpose of government being to protect persons and property...punish those who actually commit real crimes! Instead of giving a ticket to someone going 80 on a deserted freeway a night, and endangering no one, why not focus our limited (remember, constitutional government is supposed to be very limited) resources on catching and prosecuting those who break into homes or commit violent assaults? Revenue is one big reason, but also there is a statist trend in modern society to see laws as the solution to every problem. Our tradition in this nation is individual rights protected by law, not law at the expense of individual rights.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    Breyer you are an idiot. The founding fathers decided that the Federal Government could never restrict arms. It was the sight of post civil war abuse of freedmen that prompted the 14th A where states were barred as well as the federal government.

    Shame on you for being such a stupid oaf. Torpedoes? Really- torpedoes?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Who in society gets to determine who is dangerious, mentally handicapped or should not be trusted with a weapon? You are already sliding down the slippery slope the only thing left to determine is how fast will you slide. Shall not be infringed, remember.
    Seriously? I'm not even sure how to go about responding to that... how about SOCIETY decides? That has worked pretty well for the last two hundred years.

    We're already on that slippery slope. Have been since the Constitution was penned.

    We have to trust and adjust our government as needed over time. What is socially acceptable can and will change which is why our Constitution is such a powerful document. But to throw off the idea of any kind of control is as insane as complete control and just as damaging.

    Should a person who has shown a propensity towards violent crime retain his or her right to brandish a dangerous weapon? Should we allow mentally deranged persons to carry firearms? Would it make you feel safer knowing that all of those gang bangers and drug dealers are LEGALLY armed?

    The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I personally would prefer that line drawn with law and regulation rather than bullet and blood.

    Common sense should dictate who those "dangerous" individuals are.

    Though I do see your point in that common sense and the US political scene are mutually exclusive.

    - $.02

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by daddy4count View Post
    Seriously? I'm not even sure how to go about responding to that... how about SOCIETY decides? That has worked pretty well for the last two hundred years.
    Yes..."society" always has the best interests of its members at heart...I'm sure many a slave in the days of old Dixie would have agreed with you.

    Newsflash, buddy: the "will" of "society" is controlled by those members who possess the $$$ and the means to control the dissemination of information.

    We're already on that slippery slope. Have been since the Constitution was penned.
    Perhaps you are in the wrong place, then? This site is about reversing the slippery slopes of us losing our rights.

    We have to trust and adjust our government as needed over time.
    Trust the government? Seriously? I'm sorry, but I just can't stop laughing.

    What is socially acceptable can and will change which is why our Constitution is such a powerful document. But to throw off the idea of any kind of control is as insane as complete control and just as damaging.
    The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to an enumerated few. The Bill of Rights specifically prohibits the fed. gov. from violating a list of certain rights - not all-inclusive, mind you, but more of a "top 10." It, in fact, PREVENTS the legal enforcement of social whims if applied correctly.

    Should a person who has shown a propensity towards violent crime retain his or her right to brandish a dangerous weapon?
    No, he should be executed, or incarcerated until such time that he no longer poses a risk to us non-offenders out in society (for life, if necessary).

    Should we allow mentally deranged persons to carry firearms?
    The dangerously mentally ill should be confined to institutions, not allowed to roam the streets, posing a risk to citizens. If a person is too mentally deranged to carry a firearm, should he really be out in society, with easy access to many other dangerous items and substances, like chainsaws, motor vehicles, gasoline, alcohol, poisons of various kinds, knives, etc., etc., etc.?

    Would it make you feel safer knowing that all of those gang bangers and drug dealers are LEGALLY armed?
    It certainly wouldn't make me feel less safe than knowing that they are illegally armed, regardless of the laws, but to be sure, any gangbangers who have been convicted of actual crimes against persons or property should be deported if they are aliens and incarcerated if they are not, again, long enough until there is no more danger. Drugs should be legalized, and members of "society" like you should be ashamed of yourselves for turning your backs on the Constitution and appointing to yourselves the right to decide what substances other citizens should be permitted to introduce to their bloodstreams and which they should not.

    The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I personally would prefer that line drawn with law and regulation rather than bullet and blood.
    The two are not mutually-exclusive. There were plenty of very rigidly-enforced laws in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia...starting with gun control against identifiable groups that had been deemed by your beloved "society" to be "dangerous persons."

    Common sense should dictate who those "dangerous" individuals are.
    Common sense is no longer common, and I doubt that men like Jefferson, Madison, Samuel Adams, et al. would have considered you to possess a great deal of it.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •