Killers love guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel4
  • Start date Start date
During a particularly violent three days across the US, shootings left 3 dead in Pittsburgh, 14 dead in Binghamton, N.Y., and 6 dead in Washington state, where a father shot 5 of his children, ages 7 to 16, using a rifle, and later, himself.

It also follows just two weeks after four police officers were fatally shot in Oakland, Calif., in the deadliest day for U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001.

Last month, a North Carolina man shot and killed eight people before police shot him and ended the rampage, and a 28-year-old man killed 10 people, including his mother and four other relatives, across two rural Alabama counties before killing himself.

Blah, blah? How do you face yourself in the mirror?
 
where in the constitution does it say government is allowed guns?

LOL @ DNC for thinkign the second gives the government the right to form militias
 
Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl.

He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, §

These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch.

By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President.

The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President. The Commander-in-Chief Clause is a substantive grant of authority to the President and the scope of the President's authority to commit the armed forces to combat is very broad.


We're on to you:

http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/articles/1_2_496-515.pdf
 
Last edited:
what statists like DNC fail to realize is that the constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, limiting government power while according full rights to citizens. but that's way too crazy a concept for cowards that fear free americans.
 
The PEOPLE elected President Obama to bring about CHANGE. That's what he's going to do. You tried to stop him and you failed. Get over it.
 
DNC said:
Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl.

He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, §

These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch.

By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President.

The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President. The Commander-in-Chief Clause is a substantive grant of authority to the President and the scope of the President's authority to commit the armed forces to combat is very broad.


We're on to you:

http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/articles/1_2_496-515.pdf
Click to expand...

loooooool....where does it mention guns??????

you say guns are evil....yet you want the government to have them....

government is made up of citizens....you don't want citizens to have guns....your argument is therefore invalid
 
Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution provides the constitutional authority for military activities in support of the state under conditions of domestic violence, terrorism, and the like:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
 
DNC said:
Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution provides the constitutional authority for military activities in support of the state under conditions of domestic violence, terrorism, and the like:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...

none of the crap you've spewed deals with the militia, which is the people of the states.
 
"Gun nuts are perfectly willing to trample on any freedom that gets in the way of their pursuit of unrestricted private access to firearms (i.e., property rights, access to justice, freedom of information, public safety, etc.)."

How does my right to own firearms trample other people's rights??

The problem of all those murders can be placed squarely on YOUR doorstep, and those like you. The lack of guns allowed these freaks to go on their rampages unopposed. You claim that the police will protect us, but then you list time after time that they did NOT protect people.




Now, as for hunting, please do a little research into feral swine in the US. This is perfect example of how nature keeps a balance. Unopposed, these animals have resisted relocation, sterilization, hunting without seasons or bag limits, and have grown from a few hundred up to an estimated population of 4 million animals. The estimated agricultural damages annually is around $52 million.

I hunt these animals. Cross your fingers and you may get your wish, as they are dangerous animals. They are sometimes called the "Poor Man's Grizzly".
 
Does the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed revolt when an individual perceives the government's actions to be "tyrannical"?

Charles "Cookie" Thornton had been embroiled in a long running property dispute with the City of Kirkwood, MO and it's City Council.

On February 7, 2008, he stormed a meeting of the council armed with two handguns and opened fire, yelling "shoot the mayor." When the smoke cleared, three city officials and two law enforcement officers were dead.

Thornton's brother later attempted to justify the killings, telling the media, "My brother went to war with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life."

Many comments from gunlovers on blogs and web sites echoed the same sick theme, including one that stated, "GOOD!! I just hope he killed the right people, the evil ones, over this!!!!!! It is time we all stood up for our rights."

Insurrectionist philosophy has long been embraced by the deluded proponents of the discredited view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms unrelated to service in a government-regulated militia.

A right to arms to "protect against tyranny" is an important point to establish for the gunlover lobby, which seeks to keep gun ownership anonymous and unregulated by government.

The need to empower government to quell armed insurrections, however, was one of the driving forces behind the drafting of our Constitution.

Following the American War of Independence, private rebellions flared up, such as that led by Daniel Shays in Massachusetts. Shays and his followers attacked the armory at Springfield and attempted to shut down the local courts to prevent mortgage holders from foreclosing on their farms. "Shays' Rebellion" was put down with force, but revealed the need for a stronger central authority than that provided by the Articles of Confederation.

It is not because of sloppy draftsmanship that our Constitution prohibits treason and provides the national government with authority to "suppress insurrections."

A reading of the Second Amendment that finds a right of individuals to possess arms so that they can engage in armed rebellion against the government when they perceive it to be "tyrannical" is irreconcilable with these and other provisions of the Constitution, as well as our history.
 
DNC said:
Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution provides the constitutional authority for military activities in support of the state under conditions of domestic violence, terrorism, and the like:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...

All of those apply strictly to the standing military and reserves. Not to a civilian militia.
 
I'll keep spanking you as long as you keep making lame arguments.

The Second Amendment, the American State Papers were all about conscription.

There are no individual rights in a conscript military organization.

The original conscript state militia concept died in the early republic because no one wanted them and because the US Army did not become a feared instrument of political intrigue as it had in 17th century England.

The original concept was resurrected and transformed as national conscription in the twentieth century Selective Service Acts.

Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a "well regulated Militia."

For instance, the registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up.

Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service.

Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia.

I regret to inform you that you and STY are hereby judged unfit...:cool:
 
DNC....

stop talking about the second amendment....you have no clue what you are talking about....you think it is about giving the GOVERNMENT the right to form militias

thats funny!
 
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . ."
 
It is just a question of time until someone you know becomes a victim of the gun extremists, just as so many innocent children, parents, sisters, brothers and wives who are gunned down daily in America.

Still you distort the second amendment into a twisted pro-gunlover jingle.

Maybe you don't know that the NRA protects no one in their determined battle to make as much money as possible; every death puts one more dollar into their bloody pockets.

Their ultimate goal is to armed every lunatic in this country.

But what is more disturbing and sad is to read the angry and threatening posts from gunlovers...so much hate in the hearts of those who are armed.
 
either DNC is a true moron, or an elaborate troll


this poster keeps pointing out where individual people have killed with guns and using this as evidence that guns should be banned.....

glaring ommission is the number of people killed by guns that a government was responsible for. governments have killed more people with guns than any of us citizens thousands of times over. yet, this DNC poster wants to restrict guns solely to government....which factually kills more people by using guns than ordinary citizens that DNC says should not own guns.

illogical, invalid argument
 
DNC said:
It is just a question of time until someone you know becomes a victim of the gun extremists, just as so many innocent children, parents, sisters, brothers and wives who are gunned down daily in America.

Still you distort the second amendment into a twisted pro-gunlover jingle.

Maybe you don't know that the NRA protects no one in their determined battle to make as much money as possible; every death puts one more dollar into their bloody pockets.

Their ultimate goal is to armed every lunatic in this country.

But what is more disturbing and sad is to read the angry and threatening posts from gunlovers...so much hate in the hearts of those who are armed.
Click to expand...

you are either a moron, lying sack of shit, or an awesome troll.....

the second amendment is not about "pro" guns, it is about NOT letting the govnerment control our lives. it is an absolute lie that the goal is to arm EVERY LUNATIC or even EVERY person in this country....you know that

so, you are either a liar or a troll....

you pick
 
You actually need to get your facts straight.

There is not a lot of gun violence in either Britain or Canada.

You know how many gun homicides England had last year? 58.

Canada had 184 gun homicides in 2004.

Japan had 21 in 2006.

You know how many we had in the US in 2005? 12,352.

Just about every other industrialized democracy out there has far tougher gun laws than we have, far fewer guns, and FAR lower rates of homicide and gun death.

And guess what? They're all still democracies, with citizens who vote and have every right to speak their minds and live as they wish. And they're doing it without arming their populations to the teeth. Some of them have been around a lot longer than we have.

The gun manufacturers could not care less who is dying from their products.

For years, the ATF tried to forward them data showing exactly which of their greedy dealers were channeling guns to criminals. First they refused to take the data. Then they had the NRA lobby the GOP controlled Congress prohibit the ATF under law from releasing the data to either manufacturers or to our Congress.

If you're going to insult me, or anyone else who has "feeling" about 30,000 lives lost to gun violence each year (and any human being would have a feeling about it), get your facts straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top