Many of our rights have been lost that made a very big difference

[RegieRocker]

between this country and many others. Now if you're accused of being a terrorist even though you're a American citizen our government can ignore your constitutional rights. This all came to pass from foreigners wishing and doing us harm. Passed under republican congress and president. With the majority of the people backing it because of fear. After the tragic event in Tuscon the calling of more gun control by radical left wingers is alarming. It is ironic that both radical sides left and right are doing more damage to the constitution than anyone could have imagined. It's time for Americans to regain their sanity, stop being afraid of everything and use common sense. Terrorists are foreigners hence they are not protected by the constitution. Americans can be criminals but are protected by the constitution. They can only be terrorists to another country. No matter what laws are created those laws will never keep all things from happening. Can we make society perfect. No crime. I think not. It is the human condition. So how far down the no rights hole will you let the radicals take you?

[Brilliantrocket]

1. Let's hope they don't do further damage because of the recent tragedy.

Don't touch my mags. I like how alot of "progressives" are so quick to throw the second amendment into the shitter. Shall not infringe seems pretty absolute imo.

[RC]

11. Don't forget the "A well regulated Militia..." at the beginning of the sentence.

"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.

[beevul]

14. That seems to be a common refrain...

That seems to be a common refrain..."Don't forget the "A well regulated Militia..." at the beginning of the sentence."

It does not mean what you think it means.

The second amendment is a restriction on governmental power. Plain and simple. The preamble to the bill of rights clearly plainly and explicitly states it. Thats not opinion. Thats fact:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

Thats right from the document in question, itself.

Into a restriction on governmental power, which is the second in a list of ten restrictions on governmental power, you read some sort of restriction on people. While doing so might seem nifty, slick, and trendy, it is incorrect, and no amount of repetition will change that.

[RegieRocker]

18. Regulated militia and right for people to keep and bear arms are two

statements hence the commas. Thanks for posting.

[Richard Steele]

2. The entire concept of "our rights" has been lost. It was fun while it lasted.

But its OVER now, and the sooner you realize it
the happier you'll be.

[RandomThoughts]

4. That is only true if you accept that.

I do not accept that my rights are gone, I do not accept that things will not be corrected.

If one person does not accept a bad situation, then the world can not move to that situation. One single person can stop a shift in society by not accepting it, and by doing that society eventually has to change to the other position.

Assuming the position is arguable and can be shown to be just.



And I am still due beer and travel money, and that will be paid.

[Upton]

3. Thankfully, those radical left wingers

who would so easily give away our constitutional RKBA are in the distinct minority. Unfortunately though they have infected our party, hurting our image and therefore politically..

[Webster Green]

5. Heh. The radical left-wingers I know are armed to the teeth.

Bush-vets. A lot of them are in the hills, off the grid, self sufficient and their guns are well oiled and ready.

Those are radical left wingers. Anarchists and monkey-wrenchers. I don't know any of the ones you are talking about. Are you sure they aren't left-center? (whatever the fuck that means). :smoke:

[Upton]

6. I don't know what you want to call them

I'm talking about those who want to repeal the Second Amendment, or chip away at it by imposing their so called "reasonable restrictions"...perhaps you're right, "radical" is the wrong designation. I look upon them as big city anti freedom liberals..

[Webster Green]

7. I probably should have responded to the OP.

That was where the term was first used in the thread.

I'm a radical leftist. Dragged off the steps of the Pentagon to the federal lockup in '67. Involved in Earth first actions to save the last remaining old growth redwoods. Radical leftists are my peeps, and I don't know any who want the government telling us what kind of guns we can have.

Guns are tools, nothing more. You keep them clean and oiled, and use them when necessary. Trying to control them will be as successful as trying to control drugs. In other words, a fucking joke.

[RegieRocker]

16. You are a wonderful exception and have the common sense I was

referring to.

[RegieRocker]

17. They want to change what the constitutional meanings

or the constitution itself. To me this is a radical.

[uppityperson]

27. You do realize the 2nd amendment changed the constitution, right?

If you are against changing the constitution, how can you be for any of the amendments?

Keep and bear arms. Slavery prohibition. Women's right to vote. Unreasonable search and seizure. All these things were added to, hence changed, the constitution.

[RegieRocker]

30. change as in going backwards.

taking away rights.

[uppityperson]

31. Like taking away the right to own slaves?

I agree that that was pretty radical. And a change. A big change.

[RegieRocker]

33. No that was never a right it was not addressed

when it was it became illegal. So I would not want to see the legality of owning slaves changed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Yes it was a right in the Constitution

you may want to read up on the Great Compromise.

[RegieRocker]

42. A right to own slaves was in the Constitution?

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Yes

The Constitution has often been called a living tribute to the art of compromise. In the slavery question, this can be seen most clearly. The Convention had representatives from every corner of the United States, including, of course, the South, where slavery was most pronounced. Slavery, in fact, was the backbone of the primary industry of the South, and it was accepted as a given that agriculture in the South without slave labor was not possible. Though slaves were not cheap by any measure, they were cheaper than hiring someone to do the same work. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and tobacco required slaves to work the fields from dawn to dusk. If the nation did not guarantee the continuation of slavery to the South, it was questioned whether they would form their own nation.

Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, be uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.

In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."

It has been said that the seeds of the Civil War, which was fought, despite revisionist theory to the contrary, over the issue of slavery, were sown in the compromises of the Constitution on the issue. This is probably true. Slavery, which was started in violence in the kidnapping, shipment, and commerce of human chattel, needed violence to bring it to an end. After the devastation of the Revolutionary War and the unrest in the U.S. under the Articles, a time of peace and recovery was needed to strengthen the nation to a point where it could survive a civil war. The greatest tragedy is that in the nearly 100 years between the start of the Revolutionary War and the end of the Civil War, millions of slaves served, suffered, and died so that the nation could prosper.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

Why it was called the great compromise and by modern historians the seed of the civil war.

[RegieRocker]

45. Where does it state the right to own slaves?

Nothing you have posted states the right to own slaves. It merely states how to count slaves and what to do with escaped slaves. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To me that settled it. They dropped the ball and allowed slaves but nowhere that I know of is there directly a statement that gives people the right to own slaves. Fortunately there is now a direct statement that you cannot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. What do you think the 13 and 14 amendment were about

the right was pretty much IMPLIED...

THis is US History 101... not even AP history, but like BASIC US History.

I have the right to pursue slaves that escaped to free states. What do you think that means? Use your noggin'

[RegieRocker]

47. a bypass of the issue. But clearly not a direct statement.

Use yours.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. It was, this is STANDARD US HISTORY

and STANDARD US HISTORY INTERPRETATION, well except in pretty fringe and revisionist quarters. I might add this interpretation of US History is not limited ot the US either. The Great Compromise IS the seed of the civil war and it was SLAVERY.

[RegieRocker]

50. big difference between allowed and a stated right

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. It was.. get over it

Not only that, but after a very long and nasty civil war... it was also scrapped... hence 13 and 14...

This is STANDARD US HISTORY, not even AP, not even Graduate school, but HIGH SCHOOL history.

[RegieRocker]

52. You still haven't proved that there is a direct statement

to slave ownership in the constitution. "The right to own slaves". Interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. You brought up the slave issue trying to insinuate that I thought any changes were bad. I refuted that. But you persist but without any proof but hear say and acknowledgment that slave ownership existed as proof that it was a right. i disagree with your proof that it made it a right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. So you are in those fringe quarters

Let me see. I got the right to go retrieve MY SLAVE from free states if he manages to get there. And that is IN THE FUCKING DOCUMENT.

But there is no right to OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING... the pretzel has less twists in it.

[RegieRocker]

55. it is not stated directly obviously since you cannot come up

with the proof. It was an allowance, not a stated right. You accuse me of being in the fringe quarters upon what ground. I am against slavery of any kind. Including in the work place. Sex. etc. Your accusations against me wreaks radical mentality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. IT IS STANDARD US HISTORY

go take a course, or two PLEASE.

[RegieRocker]

19. Yes I needed to hear that also. It seems to me both parties are being

manipulated by minority crazy loudmouths. I sort of understand what Obama is doing now.

[mr_liberal]

8. I was just thinking the same thing.

This period reminds me of the (hysterical) period after 911 when we ended up with The Patriot Act, and other laws that restrict our freedoms.

Now we have, after this shooting, proposals for more gun control laws, restriction of freedom of speech of "violent rhetoric", talk about forcing mentally ill people into institutions involuntarily, etc...

and this time its all, or mostly, coming form the left. Its.... disappointing.

[RegieRocker]

25. Thank you

[scarletwoman]

9. My gawd, what a load of crap.

You wanna know what freedom *I* miss? I miss the freedom of living in country where the only folks who had guns were the hunters who went out after game to feed their families.

Someone started making a shitload of profit in flooding this country with weapons designed for one thing only - killing other human beings. It's sick, it's wrong, and our whole world would be a better place if all the gun manufacturers were shut down.

So, defend the merchants of death all you want, I will NEVER be on your side.

sw

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. You NEVER lived in a country where the "only folks who had guns were the hunters who went out...

...after game to feed their families." Not if you've lived in the United States all your life.

[RegieRocker]

21. That is crap. Never was such a country . Only in your head.

Dueling, outlaws, indians and the like.

[uppityperson]

28. Funny how you put "indians" in with "outlaws" to show there have been guns

[RegieRocker]

43. separated with a comma two distinct points

and not related. Same ol schtuff. 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.

[walldude]

48. That was a joke right?

You are using Native Americans as an example of why you need a gun? Really?

So we came, stole their land, their food, their way of life, and you need a gun to protect yourself from them and protect the security of the "free state"? THe free state you just stole from the people you are saying you need to protect yourself against?

Man there are so many ironies and fucked up thoughts right there I can't even argue with you. You must have gone to the conservative school of debate. Lesson one. Say things so out there and so outrageous that your opponent is left babbling and drooling in an attempt to make any sense at all out of the lunacy that is flowing off your tongue.

[RegieRocker]

57. Dumb, no it was one of the reasons they used and carried guns

in that era. You don't think that happened do you?

[walldude]

59. So one of the reasons they carried guns was to protect

themselves from the people who's land they stole.

Yeah.. keep digging.

[RegieRocker]

60. Give the person a cookie!

Yes they carried guns for protection for themselves, their family and others. My grandmother was a full blood Indian so don't go there. The Indians were rightly pissed at the white man and the white man was concerned about safety.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I guess the only absolute right under the Bill of Rights (GRAPHIC)

is the Second... I mean the rest have limits... like no screaming fire in a crowded theater.

But this is what your beloved guns do...









?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FD5BFEE6727C2E7B003EA783590EEA034E015444D05D499E88

Sorry, for the most part our media is too cowardly to even take these graphic photos.

But here are some from mass shootings



?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921CC759DF4EBAC47D0B9D2F2B89DD83C27D1D2CEC8AFC2F72289345F3675FD6C9DE30A760B0D811297





Now I am a gun owner... but like I cannot scream fire in a crowded theater... but the guns are a religion crowd really thinks this in religious grounds.

Some COMMON SENSE regulations have to take place... or we should get used to mass shootings every so often... I mean that is the price right?

[Upton]

13. Violent crime continues to drop

a drop that started in 1991, previous to the 1994 enactment of the AWB and continuing even after it's 2004 expiration. So, if another such ban is what you mean by "common sense regulations"..keep in mind the previous version apparently had no effect whatsoever. Other than to cost the Democratic party politically that is..

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. HTen the mass shootings are the price to pay

for your precious right to have extended clips?

Okie dokie.

Nobody is taking your guns away by the way. SO that is so damn far yesterday it is not funny.

Get used to this.







How many until you get it that no, I don't need and you do not need extended clips.

And yes we do need a BETTER registry

And perhaps, and as a gun owner I am going there... a fucking licence.

[beevul]

15. Yeah...

"Some COMMON SENSE regulations have to take place"

We HAVE some common sense regulations.

Furthermore, when government does not follow the laws that it is required to (even if you agree with them doing so), why should anyone else be expected to follow edicts that were arrived at through government not following laws that apply to it?

We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men (as the saying goes).

"but like I cannot scream fire in a crowded theater"

You cant? Are theater snow gagging people upon entry?

What "prevents" you from doing so?

O.T, but do you realize the "cant shout fire in a theater" comes from now overturned case law?

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. No you cannot scream fire in a crowded theater

that is like CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, as in a USSC decision...

The ONLY EXCEPTION is if there IS AN ACUAL FIRE.

The justices were pretty dang clear in that decision.

There are also OTHER LIMITS to the first amendment.

As far as the second is concerned... no, it is NOT FUCKING ABSOLUTE... get it over your thick skulls.

[beevul]

61. Who here says it is?

"no, it is NOT FUCKING ABSOLUTE"

Who here says it is?

[whistler162]

20. I believe you are one of the 26% sited by the WHO!

[RegieRocker]

22. If you and the WHO mean people that don't believe in lies and

and do not live in a fantasy world, a twisted belief in history, and a euphoria from being in the flock of sheep then you're are correct. If they and you mean people who understand that the elitists think the world is their playground and not yours then you're correct. People that believe society is being manipulated mentally and physically then your correct. People that do not want a one world government but prefer to keep our sovereignty you're correct. People that have a tendacy to think for themselves and refuse to jump on any bandwagon merely because a lot of people are then again you're correct. People that believe that the society as a whole is on the wrong track and has been for a long time, then you're correct. People that believe that wars against another nation without physical provocation are a crime against humanity you're correct. People who believe it is far better to medically and physiologically treat people rather than throw them in jail then your correct. People who believe that it is wrong to tell others how to live unless it directly effects you physically. That type of thinking takes away freedoms. You're correct. So if that is what they and you mean then yes, I am part of that 26% and proud of it.

[uppityperson]

29. Thanks for proving the point. eom

[RegieRocker]

35. Thanks for proving my point that it is you.

[affrayer]

23. I Object

This all came to pass from foreigners wishing and doing us harm.

No! It came about because of two reasons. The first was Bush Jr instituted "gunboat" diplomacy and threatened the Taliban with carpet bombing if they didn't succumb to his demands to surrender bin Laden. The second is that Bush Jr was a weak character with a morally challenged personality which easily lent itself to immoral solutions like torture and imprisonment without a trial.

Basically Bush Jr served up our rights on a platter because he was a weak person...

[RegieRocker]

34. Hmm troubling I said it was from a republican congress and

president.

[affrayer]

54. Don't You Find It Intriguing

That the right wingers are so quick to wrap themselves in the Constitution...but it's the first thing they discard when they do a reach around.

[RegieRocker]

56. I find many things amazing on the far right and left

[affrayer]

62. So do I BUT...

I can live with the folly of the left...on the other hand, the right seem dead set on destroying the country for their own personal benefit.

[cali]

24. what a ridiculous mess of an op

[uppityperson]

26. unrec for "Terrorists are foreigners ". Whatever makes you think that?

are you flaming out?

[RegieRocker]

32. Why is the word used instead of the word criminals?

I want to hear what you have to say.

[uppityperson]

36. Have you never heard of domestic terrorism? George Tiller, for example? KKK. Unabomber. Anthrax?

Here is a wiki link, will give you places to start researching. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

Another link about domestic terrorism: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2009/september/domterror_090709

[RegieRocker]

37. and when was that article written?

I don't remember seeing the word terrorists used at the scale it is used today to label a criminal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

Definitions of domestic terrorism

The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."<2>

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The question you won't answer is: Does being labeled as a domestic terrorist release a person from the protection of the constitution even though they are a an American citizen?

[uppityperson]

38. George Tiller. Anthrax mailings. Unabomber. OK city bombing.

Domestic terrorism. By Americans. KKK also. Americans. Terrorists. Not furiners.