| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 |
MrsMick
Baby #2 debuts in March 2016!
Member since 9/09 1977 total posts
Name:
Michele
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMick
I don't agree with this photo. However, to the previous poster- people are posting pictures of Washington and Jefferson because the Constitution is not to be f----ed with. Obama is messing with it. Not happy.
Slavery was in the original constitution...
You made your point. It's not exactly applicable to what we are discussing here. The 2nd amendment was created for protection. Protection against the government if it was to get out of line. Protection against criminals. Protection against any other country possibly coming over here to take anything away from us.
Whoever you want to marry or whatever you want to do with your body doesn't affect us. When someone is taking away protection, that is a huge problem. And slavery is obviously inhumane and had to be abolished. Don't F with our means of protection though!!!
|
Posted 1/17/13 11:37 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by missfabulous
I am by no means an Obama fan, but to even compare him to Hitler is completely over the top.
I hate obama plain and simple but even *I* won't share this one.
of course I've seen it and I think its a bit too well.. stupid to continue sharing it. I may hate him but I hate stupidity even more. Folks who spread idiotic hate against him makes those with valid arguments less heard.
Then again, we put up with even worse crap during the Bush era. Difference was FB wasn't around.
Red or Blue its never ok to let another country insult, belittle and demean our president. Ever.
The other thing going around lately is that Obama is giving himself life time Secret Service. Which I said used to be the way. 'OH No, how the loyalists will believe anything' (this was the response I got). They are just SOOO willing to be hateful its sicking. Until 1997 all presidents got life time service. Then it was dropped. Obama is only reinstating it back to 1997 to fill the gap. So Bush & Obama get the benefit. I still think shooting at or killing a president current or ex is a tradegy to all of our country.
I think Obama is a cancer to our country, but I limit my FB shares to facts or just comical. Not hateful, spiteful stupidity. As much as possible, anyway, I still have some fun! LOL
I wont even 'like' that image comparison. Just feels dirty.
Now Kitty Werthmann....
Message edited 1/17/2013 11:45:17 AM.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 11:43 AM |
| |
|
BriBri2u
L'amore vince sempre
Member since 5/05 9320 total posts
Name:
Mrs. B
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMick
I don't agree with this photo. However, to the previous poster- people are posting pictures of Washington and Jefferson because the Constitution is not to be f----ed with. Obama is messing with it. Not happy.
Slavery was in the original constitution...
You made your point. It's not exactly applicable to what we are discussing here. The 2nd amendment was created for protection. Protection against the government if it was to get out of line. Protection against criminals. Protection against any other country possibly coming over here to take anything away from us.
Whoever you want to marry or whatever you want to do with your body doesn't affect us. When someone is taking away protection, that is a huge problem. And slavery is obviously inhumane and had to be abolished. Don't F with our means of protection though!!!
He isn't taking it away! You jump to conclusions without reading the full agenda.
He's making it so it is HARDER to obtain a gun and to reinstate a ban on miltary assault rifles.
You can still protect your family with a gun provided its legal and your background was thoroughly checked.
I mean friggin North Shore Animal League has tigher background checks when it comes to adopting a pet. Why shouldn't the laws to obtaining a gun be 100 times as harder?
|
| Posted 1/17/13 11:54 AM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMick
I don't agree with this photo. However, to the previous poster- people are posting pictures of Washington and Jefferson because the Constitution is not to be f----ed with. Obama is messing with it. Not happy.
Slavery was in the original constitution...
You made your point. It's not exactly applicable to what we are discussing here. The 2nd amendment was created for protection. Protection against the government if it was to get out of line. Protection against criminals. Protection against any other country possibly coming over here to take anything away from us.
Whoever you want to marry or whatever you want to do with your body doesn't affect us. When someone is taking away protection, that is a huge problem. And slavery is obviously inhumane and had to be abolished. Don't F with our means of protection though!!!
Just curious. Which one of the 23 Executive Orders signed by Obama yesterday affects "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
|
| Posted 1/17/13 11:56 AM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMick
I don't agree with this photo. However, to the previous poster- people are posting pictures of Washington and Jefferson because the Constitution is not to be f----ed with. Obama is messing with it. Not happy.
Slavery was in the original constitution...
You made your point. It's not exactly applicable to what we are discussing here. The 2nd amendment was created for protection. Protection against the government if it was to get out of line. Protection against criminals. Protection against any other country possibly coming over here to take anything away from us.
Whoever you want to marry or whatever you want to do with your body doesn't affect us. When someone is taking away protection, that is a huge problem. And slavery is obviously inhumane and had to be abolished. Don't F with our means of protection though!!!
you should read the proposal... maybe that will help. he's not TAKING AWAY your means of protection... he's regulating it to protect OUR CHILDREN from guns getting to the wrong hands.
reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
you will still be able to own certain guns.
he's not "effing" with it as you so eloquently put it... the constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT. Has always been... when times change, our world changes and yes,, our LAWS change.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 11:56 AM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by ElizaRags35
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMick
I don't agree with this photo. However, to the previous poster- people are posting pictures of Washington and Jefferson because the Constitution is not to be f----ed with. Obama is messing with it. Not happy.
Slavery was in the original constitution...
You made your point. It's not exactly applicable to what we are discussing here. The 2nd amendment was created for protection. Protection against the government if it was to get out of line. Protection against criminals. Protection against any other country possibly coming over here to take anything away from us.
Whoever you want to marry or whatever you want to do with your body doesn't affect us. When someone is taking away protection, that is a huge problem. And slavery is obviously inhumane and had to be abolished. Don't F with our means of protection though!!!
Just curious. Which one of the 23 Executive Orders signed by Obama yesterday affects "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
me thinks she didn't read it.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 11:57 AM |
| |
|
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by ElizaRags35
Posted by MrsMick
Just curious. Which one of the 23 Executive Orders signed by Obama yesterday affects "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
me thinks she didn't read it.
I've read it .. around 5 times. I didn't catch the live broadcast. Maybe I missed something.
I am against banning any gun or magazine size, period. But the 23 specific things listed. Perhaps I missed it? 
Message edited 1/17/2013 12:08:49 PM.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:08 PM |
| |
|
MandJZ
Time for Baby #2!
Member since 8/10 4194 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by Xelindrya
I've read it .. around 5 times. I didn't catch the live broadcast. Maybe I missed something.
I am against banning any gun or magazine size, period. But the 23 specific things listed. Perhaps I missed it?
So then....you didn't read it if you missed the 23 things, because the 23 things ARE 'it'.
And you can read them HERE
And you're against banning military-grade assault weapons like the ones used at Sandy Hook? You think civilians should be free to have that type of weapon? For what purpose, please explain.
Message edited 1/17/2013 12:12:14 PM.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:11 PM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by MandJZ
Posted by Xelindrya
I've read it .. around 5 times. I didn't catch the live broadcast. Maybe I missed something.
I am against banning any gun or magazine size, period. But the 23 specific things listed. Perhaps I missed it?
So then....you didn't read it if you missed the 23 things, because the 23 things ARE 'it'.
And you can read them HERE
And you're against banning military-grade assault weapons like the ones used at Sandy Hook? You think civilians should be free to have that type of weapon? For what purpose, please explain.
correct me if I'm wrong... there are 23 proposals but 3 executive orders...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:13 PM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by Xelindrya
banning any gun or magazine size, period. But the 23 specific things listed. Perhaps I missed it?
i really have no opinion on the gun laws cause i know nothing about them so i wont pretend to be for or against them.
i am just wondering why you are against banning ceartin type of guns or magazine sizes?
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:14 PM |
| |
|
MandJZ
Time for Baby #2!
Member since 8/10 4194 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MandJZ
Posted by Xelindrya
I've read it .. around 5 times. I didn't catch the live broadcast. Maybe I missed something.
I am against banning any gun or magazine size, period. But the 23 specific things listed. Perhaps I missed it?
So then....you didn't read it if you missed the 23 things, because the 23 things ARE 'it'.
And you can read them HERE
And you're against banning military-grade assault weapons like the ones used at Sandy Hook? You think civilians should be free to have that type of weapon? For what purpose, please explain.
correct me if I'm wrong... there are 23 proposals but 3 executive orders...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html
I think it's 4, and then each one has details. The CNN link I put up is pretty much the same as the NYT one, I think. It's the actual document released by the White House.
I just looked at your link - CNN has the actual document posted in its original form. It is definitely worth a look.
Message edited 1/17/2013 12:16:11 PM.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:14 PM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by MandJZ
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MandJZ
Posted by Xelindrya
I've read it .. around 5 times. I didn't catch the live broadcast. Maybe I missed something.
I am against banning any gun or magazine size, period. But the 23 specific things listed. Perhaps I missed it?
So then....you didn't read it if you missed the 23 things, because the 23 things ARE 'it'.
And you can read them HERE
And you're against banning military-grade assault weapons like the ones used at Sandy Hook? You think civilians should be free to have that type of weapon? For what purpose, please explain.
correct me if I'm wrong... there are 23 proposals but 3 executive orders...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html
I think it's 4, and then each one has details. The CNN link I put up is pretty much the same as the NYT one, I think. It's the actual document released by the White House.
I didn't see the CNN one but this was passed on to me...
http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/16/president_obama_just_signed_three_gun_control_executive_orders_here_they.html
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:15 PM |
| |
|
blue11
LIF Adult
Member since 2/11 1706 total posts
Name:
kat
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMick
I don't agree with this photo. However, to the previous poster- people are posting pictures of Washington and Jefferson because the Constitution is not to be f----ed with. Obama is messing with it. Not happy.
Slavery was in the original constitution...
You made your point. It's not exactly applicable to what we are discussing here. The 2nd amendment was created for protection. Protection against the government if it was to get out of line. Protection against criminals. Protection against any other country possibly coming over here to take anything away from us.
Whoever you want to marry or whatever you want to do with your body doesn't affect us. When someone is taking away protection, that is a huge problem. And slavery is obviously inhumane and had to be abolished. Don't F with our means of protection though!!!
you should read the proposal... maybe that will help. he's not TAKING AWAY your means of protection... he's regulating it to protect OUR CHILDREN from guns getting to the wrong hands.
reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
you will still be able to own certain guns.
he's not "effing" with it as you so eloquently put it... the constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT. Has always been... when times change, our world changes and yes,, our LAWS change.
what i don't understand when people refer to the 2nd amendment and "changing" the constitution is the constitution is over 200 years old!! they did not have semi automatic assualt rifles and i'm sure they could not even imagine things like this would exist! so if you really want to stay true to what our founding fathers intended go buy a bayonet and protect your home lol 
Message edited 1/17/2013 12:23:34 PM.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:20 PM |
| |
|
blue11
LIF Adult
Member since 2/11 1706 total posts
Name:
kat
|
Re: I just don't get it..
i have no problem with the proposals - everyone still has the right to bear arms, it just doesn't mean you should have access to every kind of weapon out there. i totally agree.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:22 PM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: I just don't get it..
also- the president is a harvard law graduate who has taught who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago... I think he's an expert on the constitution.
Message edited 1/17/2013 12:23:29 PM.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:23 PM |
| |
|
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by blu6385
Posted by Xelindrya
banning any gun or magazine size, period. But the 23 specific things listed. Perhaps I missed it?
i really have no opinion on the gun laws cause i know nothing about them so i wont pretend to be for or against them.
i am just wondering why you are against banning ceartin type of guns or magazine sizes?
against 'any gun' and magazine size. I was concerned when it was rumored he would ban 'military weapons' because anything and everything can be military. Just an 'any gun' type ban is too broad. a gun and a rifle are not the same. A gun and a shotgun are not the same. so an Any Gun ban would be crazy (jmho).
Any magazine. Same premises. So 9 is good but 10 is bad? I'm against the idea that thinking any of those types of bans would exclusively prevented Sandy Hook from happening.
Further, yes I do think higher magazines SHOULD be our right to have. As given by numerous cases where an old fashioned 6 shooter just isn't enough.
A man chewed another man's face off while being shot. Bath salt freak outs aren't shut down just a few shots. And the case of the mom who shot at the intruder 6 times and he still got up and drove (what if more had been there?).
So yes I'm against any gun any mazagine bans.
Not that anyone asked me but I actually am ok with a lot of what he had to say. I was more upset about the idea of patient / client privacy then worried about him taking away my 9mm. I did think it was ironic he echo'ed the NRA idea of safety for schools but it could be interpreted either way.
ETA: let me be specific (as I wish he would be).
Ban anyone from owning gun that can shoot quickly, efficiently and repeatedly (no)
Ban anyone from owning a 50-cal .. umm YES!
Message edited 1/17/2013 12:27:17 PM.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:24 PM |
| |
|
MandJZ
Time for Baby #2!
Member since 8/10 4194 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by Xelindrya
Posted by blu6385
Posted by Xelindrya
banning any gun or magazine size, period. But the 23 specific things listed. Perhaps I missed it?
i really have no opinion on the gun laws cause i know nothing about them so i wont pretend to be for or against them.
i am just wondering why you are against banning ceartin type of guns or magazine sizes?
against 'any gun' and magazine size. I was concerned when it was rumored he would ban 'military weapons' because anything and everything can be military. Just an 'any gun' type ban is too broad. a gun and a rifle are not the same. A gun and a shotgun are not the same. so an Any Gun ban would be crazy (jmho).
Any magazine. Same premises. So 9 is good but 10 is bad? I'm against the idea that thinking any of those types of bans would exclusively prevented Sandy Hook from happening.
Further, yes I do think higher magazines SHOULD be our right to have. As given by numerous cases where an old fashioned 6 shooter just isn't enough.
A man chewed another man's face off while being shot. Bath salt freak outs aren't shut down just a few shots. And the case of the mom who shot at the intruder 6 times and he still got up and drove (what if more had been there?).
So yes I'm against any gun any mazagine bans.
Not that anyone asked me but I actually am ok with a lot of what he had to say. I was more upset about the idea of patient / client privacy then worried about him taking away my 9mm. I did think it was ironic he echo'ed the NRA idea of safety for schools but it could be interpreted either way.
I don't understand half of what was written here so I'll just address the part that I do get.
I know for a fact you made a big deal in a few posts about mental health care law. Now that it's being addressed you're most concerned about confidentiality? You can't have it both ways.
Also, the president is NOT 'echoing' the NRA about school safety - EVERYONE is talking about school safety and always has been. And it can't be interpreted 'either way' because....what does that even mean?
ETA: As for your update - so 49 is good but 50 is bad?
Message edited 1/17/2013 12:29:13 PM.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:27 PM |
| |
|
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by MandJZ
Posted by Xelindrya
Posted by blu6385
Posted by Xelindrya
banning any gun or magazine size, period. But the 23 specific things listed. Perhaps I missed it?
i really have no opinion on the gun laws cause i know nothing about them so i wont pretend to be for or against them.
i am just wondering why you are against banning ceartin type of guns or magazine sizes?
against 'any gun' and magazine size. I was concerned when it was rumored he would ban 'military weapons' because anything and everything can be military. Just an 'any gun' type ban is too broad. a gun and a rifle are not the same. A gun and a shotgun are not the same. so an Any Gun ban would be crazy (jmho).
Any magazine. Same premises. So 9 is good but 10 is bad? I'm against the idea that thinking any of those types of bans would exclusively prevented Sandy Hook from happening.
Further, yes I do think higher magazines SHOULD be our right to have. As given by numerous cases where an old fashioned 6 shooter just isn't enough.
A man chewed another man's face off while being shot. Bath salt freak outs aren't shut down just a few shots. And the case of the mom who shot at the intruder 6 times and he still got up and drove (what if more had been there?).
So yes I'm against any gun any mazagine bans.
Not that anyone asked me but I actually am ok with a lot of what he had to say. I was more upset about the idea of patient / client privacy then worried about him taking away my 9mm. I did think it was ironic he echo'ed the NRA idea of safety for schools but it could be interpreted either way.
I don't understand half of what was written here so I'll just address the part that I do get.
I know for a fact you made a big deal in a few posts about mental health care law. Now that it's being addressed you're most concerned about confidentiality? You can't have it both ways.
Also, the president is NOT 'echoing' the NRA about school safety - EVERYONE is talking about school safety and always has been. And it can't be interpreted 'either way' because....what does that even mean?
ETA: As for your update - so 49 is good but 50 is bad?
Ok first off a 50cal is a type of gun that is truly and should only be for military warfare. Its is ridiculously heavy and the 50cal refers to ammo it uses, not even the weapon itself. It is by definition not a 'gun' at all.
I said was concerned more by the patient/doctor than gun ban. Meaning by default it was a hiccup. I'm actually OK with most of what he had to say. Nothing seemed that outrageous to me.
Yes, I think mental illness SHOULD be a focus. He has a 'good' start with writing letters to states saying how its covered via medicare. How does having a gun in my home affect my regular healthcare at all? What's to keep a doctor from asking? I know, whats to keep me from not answering. Its just odd to me thats all. It didn't 'bother me' at all. Concerned me because I dont get it. I don't know why that had to be included and what is gained by it. (not lost, GAINED).
Geez. For once I'm ok with the man and folks still attack me.
If he came out and said I'm banning all semi-automatics or any thing that can become a semi-automatic I'd have been ticked.
I think he did a great job at compromise .. middle of the road. Some may see it as a victory for one side or the other. I see it more as a victory of hopefully calming the masses (tho I see i was wrong).
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:36 PM |
| |
|
Daisy32
Mommy
Member since 2/08 8081 total posts
Name:
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by BunnyWife
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMick
I don't agree with this photo. However, to the previous poster- people are posting pictures of Washington and Jefferson because the Constitution is not to be f----ed with. Obama is messing with it. Not happy.
Slavery was in the original constitution...
And so was prohibition....well it was added....but...
ETA: The constitution ia a living document...always changing to reflect changes and the (hopefully) bettering of society.
IMO Obama acted directly from an outcry of American people. and for that, I am proud to be an American....
|
| Posted 1/17/13 12:43 PM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by MrsMick
You made your point. It's not exactly applicable to what we are discussing here.
The 2nd amendment was created for protection. Protection against the government if it was to get out of line. Protection against criminals. Protection against any other country possibly coming over here to take anything away from us.
Whoever you want to marry or whatever you want to do with your body doesn't affect us. When someone is taking away protection, that is a huge problem. And slavery is obviously inhumane and had to be abolished. Don't F with our means of protection though!!!
2nd amendment was created most expressly for the protection OF our newly independent fragile state, not protection FROM it (though most would agree that was implied). SCOTUS has not sided with the current theory that reasonable restrictions constitute an infringement of any right, explicitly granted or inherently understood.
Your second point is correct, but in a beautiful act of symmetry, so is the reverse. Easy access to guns is a huge problem. 3000 gun deaths a month in a country that's not a theater of war is obviously inhumane would you agree? Untrained, unmonitored, unregistered civilians walking around as blase as could be with a weapon of war is a problem.
A disgruntled baby daddy in Kentucky killed 3 people this week because he was pissed off at visitation rights imposed by the court. Judgement was handed down, he strolled into a gunshop, walked out with a gun, and at the appointed time for dropping off his 2 year old baby blew away the mom, her uncle and her cousin (12 yo).
A waiting period might have been a good thing. 24 hours? 48 hours? 5 days even? Maybe he would've blown himself away. Maybe there would have been hope for some kind of intervention. Maybe he would've done it anyway who knows. But the ability to lethalize an impulse puts every member of society at risk, and I am unwilling to placidly accept that risk any longer.
The ability to legally buy a gun as easily as a cheeseburger infringes MY rights.
The NRA's hamstringing of the agencies and laws meant to provide a semblance of order to the population at large infringes MY rights.
The time has come for the 230 million or so non-gun owners of this country to be represented, as well as they many millions of gun owners who support an AWB and some of the other common sense points on the agenda.
This twisting and deliberate ignorance of the substance of the 2nd amendment is very peculiar to me. But the fact that people are actually having the hard conversations and finding common ground where it exists is a good sign. Not one single person in this country is going to be 100% happy with the outcome so I think the sooner we all leave that goal behind the richer the dialogue will be.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 1:06 PM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: I just don't get it..
ETA
Straight from the NRA's page Xelindrya:
"The .50 caliber is being dishonestly branded as a "terrorist" weapon, supposedly because it's a hair's breadth larger than other rifles. The anti-gunners' language reveals their true strategy: to ultimately ban all rifles, no matter their size"
So I think people should know this and be concerned about it. Other model legislation they have on deck seeks to repeal the NFA of 1934, effectively banning full auto machine guns.
So while some scream "INFRINGEMENT" at any modest proposals, be aware that the NRA is working VERY hard to encroach much further on the public safety, and the gunmakers couldn't be happier about it.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 1:12 PM |
| |
|
laurabora
LIF Adult
Member since 4/07 2712 total posts
Name:
Laura
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by colette
Posted by MrsMick
You made your point. It's not exactly applicable to what we are discussing here.
The 2nd amendment was created for protection. Protection against the government if it was to get out of line. Protection against criminals. Protection against any other country possibly coming over here to take anything away from us.
Whoever you want to marry or whatever you want to do with your body doesn't affect us. When someone is taking away protection, that is a huge problem. And slavery is obviously inhumane and had to be abolished. Don't F with our means of protection though!!!
2nd amendment was created most expressly for the protection OF our newly independent fragile state, not protection FROM it (though most would agree that was implied). SCOTUS has not sided with the current theory that reasonable restrictions constitute an infringement of any right, explicitly granted or inherently understood.
Your second point is correct, but in a beautiful act of symmetry, so is the reverse. Easy access to guns is a huge problem. 3000 gun deaths a month in a country that's not a theater of war is obviously inhumane would you agree? Untrained, unmonitored, unregistered civilians walking around as blase as could be with a weapon of war is a problem.
A disgruntled baby daddy in Kentucky killed 3 people this week because he was pissed off at visitation rights imposed by the court. Judgement was handed down, he strolled into a gunshop, walked out with a gun, and at the appointed time for dropping off his 2 year old baby blew away the mom, her uncle and her cousin (12 yo).
A waiting period might have been a good thing. 24 hours? 48 hours? 5 days even? Maybe he would've blown himself away. Maybe there would have been hope for some kind of intervention. Maybe he would've done it anyway who knows. But the ability to lethalize an impulse puts every member of society at risk, and I am unwilling to placidly accept that risk any longer.
The ability to legally buy a gun as easily as a cheeseburger infringes MY rights.
The NRA's hamstringing of the agencies and laws meant to provide a semblance of order to the population at large infringes MY rights.
The time has come for the 230 million or so non-gun owners of this country to be represented, as well as they many millions of gun owners who support an AWB and some of the other common sense points on the agenda.
This twisting and deliberate ignorance of the substance of the 2nd amendment is very peculiar to me. But the fact that people are actually having the hard conversations and finding common ground where it exists is a good sign. Not one single person in this country is going to be 100% happy with the outcome so I think the sooner we all leave that goal behind the richer the dialogue will be.
I think I love you.
Message edited 1/17/2013 4:06:35 PM.
|
| Posted 1/17/13 4:06 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: I just don't get it..
I didnt read all the replies and I am not saying Obama is as evil as Hitler (though I am not an Obama fan) but the picture is not saying that Obama is going to do the things Hitler did... it is just showing a stupid/crazy idea proposed in the same surroundings. The negative connotations are there for sure but all I am saying is that the picture does not make me think that the creator of this little gem is claiming that Obama is going to start up concentration camps or try and take over the world.
|
| Posted 1/20/13 4:03 PM |
| |
|
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I didnt read all the replies and I am not saying Obama is as evil as Hitler (though I am not an Obama fan) but the picture is not saying that Obama is going to do the things Hitler did... it is just showing a stupid/crazy idea proposed in the same surroundings. The negative connotations are there for sure but all I am saying is that the picture does not make me think that the creator of this little gem is claiming that Obama is going to start up concentration camps or try and take over the world.
I don't think the point of the image is to say he's going to start a Holocaust but it is comparing Obama to Hitler - an evil dictator and as such is saying Obama is the same.
|
| Posted 1/20/13 8:38 PM |
| |
|
Erica
LIF Adult
Member since 5/05 11767 total posts
Name:
|
Re: I just don't get it..
Posted by MrsMick
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMick
I don't agree with this photo. However, to the previous poster- people are posting pictures of Washington and Jefferson because the Constitution is not to be f----ed with. Obama is messing with it. Not happy.
Slavery was in the original constitution...
You made your point. It's not exactly applicable to what we are discussing here. The 2nd amendment was created for protection. Protection against the government if it was to get out of line. Protection against criminals. Protection against any other country possibly coming over here to take anything away from us.
Whoever you want to marry or whatever you want to do with your body doesn't affect us. When someone is taking away protection, that is a huge problem. And slavery is obviously inhumane and had to be abolished. Don't F with our means of protection though!!!
Not sure about the Washington and Jefferson connection. Jefferson was in Paris at the time of the Convention and Washington only spoke once. Further more, the Bill of Rights weren't part of the original Constitution. The Fathers did not include these rights. It was only when the states were not ratifying that James Madison proposed and wrote them (albeit with Jefferson's support).
Because of FB alone, I think it's clear why Social Studies is required for 4 years in high school.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 6:32 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 |
