I just want to say thank you to the gun nuts,

under your steady watch, our country has remained free from the spectre of government overstepping the bounds of its constitutional authority.

of the police, army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, reserves, private security companies, secret service...

With all the rhetoric around here about El Presidente being: a tyrant, a fascist, a right-wing nutjob, and wanting to establish a theocracy, you advocate giving him an absolute monopoly on force?? What happens if, for whatever reason, he decides that all who disagree with him need to be placed in detention camps? Do you honestly believe that, for whatever ethical reasons, the armed forces and law enforcement personnel WON'T follow orders? I can't understand the rationale of disarming yourself and others when you have a tangible and rational fear of a tyrannical state.

Don't forget that

Your deer rifles have stopped the government from straffing my house with F-16's and frightened off full combat boys with M-16's from even daring to look through my place!

Thanks for defending "freedom"!!!


--tongue-in-cheek

:eyes:

would you be one those that says what a bunch of wacko nutjobs?

...held off the U.S. military with civilian weapons I would call you a miracle worker!

They raised their weapons high above their head and proclaimed: "We will not go to Iraq -- it is Viet Nam all over again."

who sends kids off to die in a senseless war. What a great defender of the Constitution thou art.

... have been a different story.

If you really want to thank us, thank us for working so diligently in defeating the reauthorization of the 94 Assault Weapons and large capacity magazine ban.

Next order of buisness... passage of a firearms manufacturers immunity bill and national reciprocation for CCW holders.

We'll work on the "spectre of government overstepping the bounds of its constitutional authority" at the next convenient opportunity..

They are the ones who insist on the dilution of gun rights.

It's actually quite ingenious.

First, they say no one should have certain types of weapons because they are too powerful for civilians to own.

Then after banning/restricting said weapons, they claim the irrelevancy of gun rights since the civilian weapons they haven't banned yet are no match for the weapons they have banned.

:crazy:

:toast:

:beer:

of waging war against the US government with your own private arsenal. I sure you will go down in history as the hero of your feverishly self-imagined Alamo.

that was not there.

...and... ....and... ...and the Constitution too!

Only the parts of the Constitution he dislikes or disagrees with.

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

....... Alan Dershowitz.

I wouldn't expect him to be too concerned with gun violence either.

Actually, Dershowitz is very much opposed to individuals owning firearms.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=347456

(FWIW, I attended this debate... it turned out to be quite boring).


"Expert Panel Debates Gun Control"

8<--------- Snip


"Dershowitz said that he is not an expert on the Second Amendment and has never held a pistol, but joked about his experience as a defense attorney.

“I can’t say that about all of my clients,” he quipped.

Dershowitz said that “a narrow right to own guns for self-protection” existed but that there is still room for substantial government regulations.

Dershowitz, however, called the Second Amendement an “anachronism” because if America had the choice today it would not choose to be an “armed society.”

“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society,” he said.

Dershowitz said that ideally he would like a gun ban, but would settle for significant restrictions.

At the same time, he voiced his opposition to “constitutionalizing” the gun control debate by leaving it for the Supreme Court to decide. Dershowitz said he would prefer that controls are worked out through the legislative process".

Because without them, he would never have been elected President.

in keeping the "of government overstepping the bounds of its constitutional authority."

You can blame the gun nuts, and I can blame the anti gun nuts, if you want.

Or we can ask if giving up all of our guns would have prevented the government from overstepping the bounds of it constitutional authority, or limited it, or exacerabted it.

has ever, EVER asked Americans to "give up ALL their guns"? Just asking.

No one has ever (to my knowledge) introduced a bill in Congress that says "no projectile weapons may be privately owned in the United States". No one has done that. I haven't heard any serious political figures advocating a total ban on possession of firearms. In fact people like Feinstein and Kerry make it clear that they think that a certain very small set of guns which they consider "sporting weapons" should be legal. (As someone who is very familiar with firearms technology, I'm not really sure how you capture the idea of a "sporting weapon" in the form of a law, but whatever.)

Politicians have also not tried to ban all so-called "non-sporting weapons" all at once. They do it incrementally. First we'll label these guns as "assault weapons" and ban them. Then we'll label those guns as "sniper rifles" and ban them. Then next we add some more features to the "assault weapons features" list to "close the loopholes". On and on. Hey, guns are legal in Japan! You can buy a hunting shotgun there. So maybe that's the final goal for politicians like Feinstein. Not an all-out ban like in Jamaica, but maybe something like in Japan where a very tiny set of guns are available.

I just don't see what the definition of a sporting weapon is. Does it have to do with the color? Cosmetic features? What's the difference in functionality between a Browning automatic hunting rifle and an AR-15? They look different but they're both gas-operated semi-autos with detachable box magazines. How do you distinguish between them in the form of a law?

Also, while no one has come out and said "ban them all" quite a few politicians have come out attacking the idea of gun ownership and the 2nd amend. Is the 2nd an individual right? I think it is, just like the 1st amend is also an individual right. But when I hear politicians telling "you don't have a right to own a gun", that's all I need to hear. I don't need to hear them say "we're going to ban everything"; just telling me that I don't have a right to own a gun is enough information for me to go on.

But hey, Jamaica is a gun-free, crime-free paradise, right? If it works for them it will work for us!

Diane Feinstein, US Senator, "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

But that isn't what she meant in this statement. She was speaking of "assault weapons" and how she would have ordered nationwide confiscation if she had the votes to do so.

In countries where guns have been banned, they figured out that they need to ban some other things, too.

They need to ban knives: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3809357

Oh and then they need to ban rat poison: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/11/14/poison.revenge.ap

Then they need to ban (weed out?) the deadly assault plants: http://www.htnext.com/news/7242_1122176,00180007.htm

And to really complete the task they're going to need to ban bagels: http://www.aarrgghh.com/no_way/murderByBagel.htm

Here in California they have banned 50bmg long-range rifles, even though more murders have been committed by means of a bagel than by such rifles in the US. That's called being cautious! You can never be too safe, right? The ban goes into effect on Dec. 31st so there are more of these rifles being sold here than in the rest of the US combined.

By the time they ban everything that isn't made by the Nerf Company, we'll all be safe! To really make all these bans work they will have to come up with some kind of "search and destroy" teams that will go around raiding peoples' houses looking for these things. Getting a warrant for each house will be too much trouble so we'll have to do what they did in Jamaica when they banned all guns: they set up special "gun courts" and imposed extremely harsh penalties for firearms violations. Won't that make you feel safe? It sure made Jamaica safe!

hahaha at banning bagels

wow

There was an indictement for murder by bagel, follow that link. In this case, a person was suffering a debilitating disease (multiple sclerosis I think) and the caregiver knew that this person would choke if given solid food. The caregiver wanted him dead... a bagel was introduced... and an indictement soon followed.

Therefore, more people have been murdered by bagels in this country than have been murdered by 50BMG rifles (just recently banned in CA) or by legally-owned civilian non-law enforcement machineguns since the passage of the NFA in 1934.

BAN ASSAULT BAGELS!

Did you know these facts about bagels?

1. Used more often by murderers than civilian-owned machineguns.

2. Often come with deadly "assault" features such as poppy seeds... the same seeds which are the source of heroin!

3. 168,400,960 were sold on the streets of the US in 2003 (http://www.aibonline.org/resources/statistics/bagel.html), with almost no regulation. It is unknown how many of these were legitimate lunching bagels and how many were deadly assault bagels with features such as cream cheese.

4. Americans consumed 33,600,000,000 calories from bagels last year! That is the equivalent calories of 9.600,000 pounds of FAT! Obesity is one of the leading killers of Americans and bagels contributed almost 10 million pounds of FAT! And that's only counting the bagel itself. The bagel is often used as a vector for even more fat, such as cream cheese and dead smoked marine life.

5. Bagels are made in a process involving deadly super-heated gaseous dihydrogen monoxide, a chemical substance which causes millions of deaths each year. Gaseous DHMO is widely used in nuclear reactors! For more about the dangers of DHMO see: http://www.dhmo.org.

6. Bagels are very rare in Japan, and the murder rate in Japan is far lower than in the US.

7. Cops oppose bagels. Cops support doughnuts, which are a safer alternative.

this is too funny. please stop. haven't hada good laugh in a while.

ASSAULT BAGELS hahaha

before you protest, let me clarify...

you said "gun nuts". most gun nuts belong to the NRA, or wish they could, or are too intense and instead join the Michigan Militia. the majority of pro-gun, one issue voters voted for Bushie in a biiig way.

They've not been able to confiscate the guns yet but they HAVE overstepped the bounds of the Constitution. We haven't had a Constitutional government for years. When the people think that the goverment is the solution for the ills of society then government gets bigger. Remember, government is just people with guns telling you what to do with your life. Gosh, there I go revealing my Anarcho/Libertarian leanings.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is Democratic Underground. Did you come here to praise the "moderate W" and bash Clinton and Feinstein?