![[Nameplate]](http://www.gcdailyworld.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 32°F ~ Low: 17°F Sunday, Feb. 12, 2012 |
|
Bang Bang!!Posted Wednesday, September 9, 2009, at 12:41 PM
It takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch. No, really, it does, and it could not be any more true in the political arena. Cindy Sheehan ruined the image of Iraq war protestors; The people who supported Senator McCain's presidential campaign because they thought President Obama was(and even is) an Arab ruined the image of thinking conservatives (not to mention those who simply disagree with the President); and then irresponsible gun-toters ruin the image of people who like guns.
The last thought can be seen no further than Greene County. Our home county! A man with a gun who is pushing a carriage with a loaded weapon makes me wonder if he has any fiber of responsibility in him. Who in their right mind carries a loaded gun while pushing a baby carriage while walking with his children? It is unfortunate the baby was accidentally killed. That was an awful travesty. My thoughts have been and will always be with the children present that day. This carries over to the town hall meetings where the President was present. People attended those meetings not just with weapons but with AUTOMATIC weapons. If I could ask any of those attendees who carried those weapons one question, it would be why do you feel the need to carry an automatic weapon to a town hall meeting? As one can tell, this blog is about guns and how people are becoming more and more irresponsible with them. Which makes me pose this question: how in the hell do stupid people get access to guns? Due to recent events one can tell that an intelligent test that goes along with possessing guns is nonexistent, but after seeing the events in the past month a responsible gun owner must be thinking the same as me. Here is my position when it comes to guns. It is a Constitutional right to possess and use them. People need to be educated at an early age about guns and their proper use, but I in no way condone the use of automatic weapons. I even think the NRA should make yearly visits to elementary schools to teach children about guns and rifles, but I do not believe any civilian should own, use, or carry an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. I might turn the corner on this issue if someone could tell me the necessity of owning, using, and/or carrying an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Why have them? To hunt? So take an Uzi to hunt deer. I wonder how the meat will look/taste. For protection? Yeah, right. If I see someone walking down the street with an AK47, the entire area is not safe because if you are walking down the street with an automatic weapon, you clearly possess no sense. I own guns and enjoy shooting them. It is exhilarating to fire a round from a rifle, but the thing to keep in mind is responsibility. What we need in this country, now more than ever as we can tell, is responsible gun control. I do not condone ridding of all guns because our U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment as owning guns being a fundamental right. What I condone is a responsible gun control. That is something that everyone can get behind. Now if we can just figure out how to get stupid people to not own guns...THAT is the real quest. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics The Grand Finale(8 ~ 11:53 AM, Aug 11)
For The Dads
The Once and Future Subject
Personal Story
Mom's Day
|
Email link
Read comments (29)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.gcdailyworld.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Ronald Bohannon was a felon at the time of the accident. Since it was ILLEGAL for him to be carrying at the time, I don't see how his actions have any negative impact on legal gun ownership or reflect poorly on those responsible gun owners like myself. When I have children I could see no better time to carry in order to protect those most important to me. However, I would be doing it legally and in a concealed holster. You should have included that Bohannon (idiot that he is) carried his pistol in his hand as he pushed a stroller.
I agree that it would be nice to keep guns away from the stupid. It would also be helpful if the stupid couldn't vote (what possible opinions would we want from an idiot?) or if we could just weed the stupid out of the gene pool for good...... see where this is going? RIGHTS mean just that. Not up to you and I to decide - pick freedom or sheltered, protected life under a benevolent dictator cuz ya can't have it both ways.
Drew you won't have to worry about your 2nd ammendment rights if Regulatory Czar -- Cass Sunstein is voted in. You won't need guns because your hunting dog will be able to sue you in a court of law for making him hunt to hard. America is in bigtime trouble folks...............
So now she's a quack! When she was protesting President Bush she was your little darling, If your going to throw someone under the bus why not some real quacks like Barney Frank, the dip that is the speaker of the house,Barbra Boxer, Diana Feinstien or half the other felons on that side of the isle, instead of some poor distraught mother who lost her son? By the way the Second Amendment IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!
Secondly, have you read the Second Amendment?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Do you know what that means? I have studied the Constitution a lot, and I am not sure what that means. As I stated in the blog, the U.S. Supreme Court interprets that as the citizens owning firearms. That is the law and so shall it be.
Deterrence, Cow Rancher? How about thoughts of violence.
At any rate, here are some interesting statistics from the Department of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/we...
Good day everyone and thanks for reading.
Americans have automatic firearms to protect their families, they're fun to shoot and it is a right for law-abiding citizens.
cspackler, Beenunter and gentrymw are all right!
I wonder if Australia would like to give the guns back to the people. Their violent assault rate has gone up 49.2% since their gun buy back program in 1997. This is correlated directly to the people not being able to defend themselves.
I contend that each public school should have a security teacher to possess a firearm in case a school shooting or other gross vilence breaks out.
Just the thought of deterrance lowers violence. Just ask pilots if they feel safer having gun carrying homeland security agents randomly assigned to flights.
I agree, America is on the broad road to destruction....
I agree that stupid people are the problem. I also agree that gun education is important. I believe gun education should be mandatory for owning a weapon. I differ in that I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning any weapon they choose, automatic or otherwise. We should restrict WHO can own guns not WHAT guns one can own. When the law is used to restrict the types of weapons one can own, only criminals will own those weapons.
If someone brings an automatic into the mall and opens fire but as a law abiding citizen I only have a pistol, who's gonna win? That's the reason criminals choose the church, school or mall. They can be reasonably certain the people in those places are law abiding citizens so will either be unarmed or will have a much weaker weapon. How likely is a criminal to go to a place they suspect someone is likely to be equally armed?
As a naive college student I thought it would be a great idea to research gun control and write about it. I came to the same conclusion as I do with most politically charged issues. The answer is in the middle.
We need some laws concerning guns, but it seemed to me most of those should be on gun manufacturers. At the time I wrote my papers, gun control manufacturers had less guidelines than toy manufacturers in quality and safety of their product. I'm not sure if that has changed legally, but manufacturers do seem to be making a better effort...safety locks being one of many. There were a lot of laws on the books that were not clear or simply not enforced on owners.
I found it odd that the NRA only printed "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." on their pamphlets. Gun control advocates had the first part of the 2nd amendment in bold on their handouts. Both took an opposite view disregarding the whole.
I wouldn't mind seeing the research on Australia because each side tends to distort information. I doubt the increase in crime is a direct result of less guns...maybe a contributing factor..who knows.
As for guns and protection, for every story of a person using a gun to protect themselves... you can find a story of someone who accidentally shot a loved one. Reading each sides findings on that little nugget is interesting. Both have completely bias organizations twist facts and figures to fit their view.
I believe in the right to bear arms. I also believe in education(the #1 most impressive thing about the NRA) and responsibilty. I'm not sure the thought of citizens toting semi-automatic weapons around in defense of the unknown is good either. Law abiding citizens shoudln't use criminals as their common sense. Criminals who want to kill unarmed people will find a way. I'm not sure a church full of semi-automatic gun toting people will deter them or not.
America is on the broad path to destruction? People have been saying that since we signed the constitution(maybe before). Sort of like those people that keep predicting the next year is the end of days...I guess eventually somebody will get it right.
@not from Greene County. Why shouldn't private, law abiding individuals be allowed to own a tank? Owning a tank would be for preserving a piece of history. No private, law abiding individual would own a tank for home defense or hunting.
Assuming Sadam was an American, he would not have been allowed to own an atom bomb since it is capable of mass destruction. The term "arms" applies to weapons that can be used for self-preservation (i.e. self-defense and hunting) but not mass destruction since that would contradict self-preservation. No one would defend against a mugger by setting off an atom bomb nor could one hunt with an atom bomb.
I would like to use an atom bomb to get rid of some of these deer!!!!!
I am sure you would want to use an A-bomb to rid of some deer, CR....hell, while you're at it, why not use some Napalm and Agent Orange in hunting areas? Or better yet, why not tie up an animal to a vehicle so the animal can flop on the ground while it fails to keep pace. some of you are pretty silly.
???? hitman648
Are you trying to make a point, being one of the "silly" ones or what?
Whatever it is... I don't get it.
The conversation started off good on both sides of the issue but after that comment from "not from Greene Co." it went down hill pretty fast.
The weekend is here, maybe it will get better.
PS: I got nothin' much to offer that hasn't already been said so... I just thought I would help get it back on track.
It doesn't matter if there are laws to help keep guns out of the less intelligence hands. They will, and they will, find a way to get their hands on them. Same goes for those who have intent on hurting someone.
hitman648..........crazy man!!!!!!!!!lol There wouldn't be any meat left to eat if we used your hunting tactics.lol
Oh and I loved how you touched upon National Lampoons!!!!!!
Well, if I read the blog correctly, Drew started off by talking about Cindy Sheehan. That makes "gentrymw's" comment valid. It is interesting how Cindy was held up as a badge until she was protesting President Obama for not holding to his campaign promise. Now she is just a whack. Perhaps "gentrymw" was referring to the seeming shamelessness of some politicians. Sen. Kennedy fought to have a law in Mass. changed to benefit his party and then wanted it changed back to benefit them again. (sidetrack maybe but Drew did start with Cindy...). As far as Uzi's or AK47's go, the 2nd Amendment is NOT talking strictly about hunting or even personal defense. Every able bodied male was to be ready to defend his family, community and country. Even if that meant against a govt. that ignored the Constitution and the will of the people. They had just started a form of govt. that had never been before. We can go around and around on the interpretation but it ends when we understand and accept the mindset of the individuals who wrote it.
Drew also brought up the "birther" issue. I believe that his own grandmother stated that he was born in another country... I know it is easy for grandparents to forget the circumstances and places of birth of a grandchild. Especially Muslim families who cherish the male children. Sorry, but she started it and it makes me wonder.
Is that sarcasm? It's hard to tell with out the voice inflection. I know I can't be correct on everything but like I said, his own grandmother said it. Also, why was only one candidate vetted? Not trying to be a conspiracist but sometimes things just don't add up until you apply Occam's razor. Besides we all listen to each other, that's why we are posting. It gets boring listening to only people we agree with.
If you read the entire first paragraph, you would have seen the first sentence when it mentions about bad apples ruining the bunch. Then from that, I gave examples, such as the aforementioned Mrs. Sheehan.
Also, Jbann, in a response to Beehunter I quoted the Second Amendment. Unfortunately it is rather ambiguous. I will quote it again.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Like I said to Beehunter, the U.S. Supreme Court interprets that as citizens possessing firearms.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Where do I start...
Drew, I don't see how Mrs. Sheehan has accomplished that. She was outspoken but I don't see the difference between her and people of previous generations and their protests. Not to "spin" you words but what I see from previous protesters and her and your viewpoint of her, I can only conclude that you disagree with them as well (you think they are all insane). Please tell me how she "ruined" the image of protesters. I must be missing something. I'm sorry if when you wrote your blog you had something else in mind or were just using her and McCain as launching pads to your actual statement. However, they were mentioned and are launching pads for other thoughts. That is not "spinning". You stated two people by name and one group generalized. You then set off using the generalized group for you topic. I don't mean to keep this going down the Sheehan/McCain road but I did NOT "spin" your words, I was clarifying gentrymw's post. You say "thinking" Liberals or "thinking" Conservatives. I wonder if the non-thinking Liberals are just the people who you disagree with. Of course "thinking" Conservatives is just a pleasantry used for courtesy sake. I am not spinning your words just expressing my understanding of your use of them.
As far as the 2nd Amendment, I don't see any ambiguity and am stunned that such highly educated men and women would either not understand it or choose to interpret it as ambiguous. Doing so leaves open the door for future "interpretation". I stand by my previous post. Please don't make me put up the same old quotes from people who actually partook in the writing of these documents. That is more work than I care to take since I would have to look them up...
And now for "not from Greene Co.". John McCain was born in Panama. In a U.S. military zone. Technically U.S. soil...
As far as the early Presidents are concerned you are just baiting a response to a non-issue. If you don't already know the answer to your own question then nothing that I say will help.
But here goes.
Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of The Constitution of the United States of America states:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible too that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.".
Perhaps that will be interpreted as ambiguous someday by our courts, but I have a pretty good understanding of it after just one reading.
I hope that helps and that I have not been ambiguous or left anything for "spin ability".
Sorry, I should have used the word "Base" and that the parents must already be U.S. citizens. I would have to look that up to give you exact quotes but feel free to do some of the research since you are most curious. I do believe that you said Washington was born in Virginia, a colony instead of England. The colonies were considered free and independent states in 1776, "the fundamental Act of Union of these States". -James Madison
However, I will concede that McCain may NOT be an actual born citizen of the U.S. since the laws of Panama and the U.S. at the time of his birth show this possibility. BUT if you would read about his Vetting (if only partial but was much more than Obama received with much more of a questionable background) shows that McCain was determined a citizen of the U.S..
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States)
But take note that any actual documents to Obama's birth were never actually available to anyone other than the Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino of Hawaii... and his own grandmother stated where he was born...
Can we now move back to the 2nd Amendment since that is apparently what Drew would like for us to debate? Or maybe it is what should be done about "stupid" people.
"but in the Original Constitution that most conservatives find so precious when it fits their needs" -not from Greene Co.
I hope this Constitution keeps something from being done about that since we all are "stupid" at times. Granted some more than others and more consistent but still a scary prospect.
PS: not from Greene Co. I have to wonder by your statement whether you hold the Constitution precious... since you also state that you are a "very proud citizen of this country..." And what is wrong with holding the Constitution precious??? Kind of leaves your statements open for debate.
Ahh, finally. The Liberal calls names. It was inevitable, it seems to go hand in hand with your beliefs.
You can stomp all you want but it is all in print above for all to view and evaluate. Unfortunately, if some view me as an "idiot" or "stupid" does that mean that if there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it, can something be "done" about me and other "idiots/stupid people"?
Now for a question of logic. Would the people who wrote the Constitution have written it so that NO ONE would be able to attain the office of President for 35 YEARS after the U.S. was formed?
As far as the "Original Constitution" goes, I think it prudent to have you clarify you use of that. Do you mean the Constitution before Amendments? I am confused since I am unaware of any one refuting the Amendments as part of the Constitution. If you are referring to the Constitution with Amendments then I think it is the 14th Amendment that will help answer that for you.
Now back to the 2nd Amendment and citizens having access to repeating rifles and such. I think that you are saying that it was written in respect to militia because there was no formal military. It also was written because the writers knew from history that govt. can become rulers given time and apathy as well as defenselessness of its citizens.
Thomas Jeffeson: "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."
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. "
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
jbann...you can't quote Jefferson. That man was a walking contradiction. Read Joseph Ellis' book entitled "American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson." Once you read the book, you will realize as great as he was, he simply cannot be quoted by any conservative or liberal.
Now back to the second amendment, have you not seen the homicidal rates in this country? Look at the DOJ website Drew quoted in his first response. The homicide rates with guns vastly outweigh the homicide rates than ANY other weapon. If you want to come back at me with this notion of those things would be avoided if the victims had guns, it would not, however, change the homicide rate.
You never gave a good reason as to why people need semi-automatic and/or automatic weapons. You say to protect yourself against the government? What? That does not make sense. It made sense in the 1840's, but now? If it were to happen, it would have happened between 2001-2009 when President Bush's administration spied on everyone.
Btw, jbann and other "birthers," I want to see proof that President Obama's grandmother said he was not born here. This whole thing is preposterous to begin with. I'll show you the President's birth certificate when you show me Gov. Palin's high school diploma....
What about Adams, Madison
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."
James Madison
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
There are too numerous to post...
I have tried to go to the web page of DOJ for this and have been unable to load it. I have tried numerous ways and still unable to see it.
I am curious as to who did the shooting and who was shot? Were these guns held by legal owners? Were they common disputes (ie: parking too close to another's driveway, spousal disputes, etc.) or were they gang related, inner city related, muggings of defenseless persons, underworld related...
Perhaps during the Bush administration it was just the start of citizens seeing the loss of their rights and the cost of it. People want to trust their govt.. The alternative is just too scary... but historically speaking is not out of the question as our Founding Fathers have stated.
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
As far as the birth issue, it seems to be based on a telephone interview done by Bishop McRae, of the North American Anabaptist Church, with the assistance in Kenya of a fellow missionary and native translator. The question still stands as to why the full documents are not disclosed, especially given the divisiveness it presents. I am still open to the possibility that he has legal right to the office but I would like to see the documents released to at least some others in various branches/levels of the govt. or to some such thing.
not from Greene Co., I did NOT call you anything... what is your problem? We were having dialogue and you got stumped and resorted to name calling. If you had not been trying to load your statements with partial facts or even contradicting a statement by the "Father of the Constitution" you would not have been so embarrassed. I don't know all of the facts but I do try to check them especially after someone points out a possible mistake on my part. As you can see above, I am still open to Obama's legal right to his office. I just have not seen where it has been substantiated sufficiently -as I have stated earlier.
Please don't tell me you are going to take your ball and go home... Liberals are supposed to be the ones "open" to dialogue.
Umm, who deleted "not from Greene Co.'s" post? Am I next? Dude, I am trying to keep it on subject. It's, umm, gentrymw's fault. Yeah, that's it. It's his fault. He started it. Yeah, yeah that's it...
:D
i dunno who's doing the deleting, but deleting isn't cool. booo to the deleters!
jbann....try the DOJ link again...it worked for me.
I am deleted more than anyone, yet seem to be the target of most of the name calling. Hmmmmmm.....
I will continue to quote Jefferson, writer of the Declaration, as as much as necessary.
Since hitman says he is a walking contradiction then I feel justified in referring him to President Obama's books and campaign for your contradictory pleasure.
Don't you quote Obama, either.
While it is true that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and not any of the 50 states, I don't think that this in anyway would disqualify him for the Presidency. The Canal Zone was a valid territory of the US at the time, and his father was on military assignment there at the time. He is in every way a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
A more interesting example would have been George Romney, Mitt Romney's father. He was born in Mexico while his parents were living there to escape persecution based on his faith (Mormon). Although he was born outside the US, he did enter primaries and run for the office of President. Surely, he was not a "natural born citizen."
This has not been tested in the courts, but if and when it is, I beleive that military brats born on bases in foreign soil will be considered eligible.
There is a personal note here for me. My father served in the Korean War, and he once told me that if he'd been given a second tour of duty, then the family would have probably been temporarily moved to Honshu Japan. I would have been born there, instead of Ft. Campbell, Ky, where he was stationed at the time. The family had previously been moved to Bad Nauheim, Germany, while he was stationed there after WWII.
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
I think the key word here is "peaceable" ...
cow rancher:
You think your deleted alot, seems like most things I comment on are deleted. Guess they don't like what I say huh? Personally I think they only print what they want people to read, comments they agree on. I have just about quit commenting because they delete me so much.
not from Greene Co.: Thank you for clarifying this. I am glad you knew my dad, and whenever I am reminded of his military accomplishments, I feel quite humbled. He sacrificed much for his country.
two cents, IN
I wish Greene Countians would get out a little bit more. Frankly, I wish all Americans would get out a little bit more. Since leaving Greendingle I've travelled to the Soviet Union (when it still was the Soviet Union), most of Western and Eastern Europe and several countries in Asia. And guess what folks? While I have a much greater respect and understanding for other countries and cultures, I also value my own country so much more.
I found it laughable when I heard my democrat friends talk about how GW was killing our freedom and tearing the country apart...just as laughable as when I hear my Republican friends decry how Obama is running the country into the ground.
You all just don't get it. It's the fact that we can have two extremes (however misguided) and still flourish as a nation that makes us so great!