Gun Control and the Second Amendment

The Dept HS is stopping people on the roads of the US to get people used to being bullied by the authorities

They have no right to do that as these refusals by citizens show:

[video=youtube;u4Ku17CqdZg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg&feature=player_embedded#![/video]
 
The Dept of HS refuse to answer congress question on why they have bought 1.6 billion bullets:

[video=youtube;HbfjxjpKoR8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbfjxjpKoR8&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 
muir said:
The Dept of HS refuse to answer congress question on why they have bought 1.6 billion bullets:

[video=youtube;HbfjxjpKoR8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbfjxjpKoR8&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Click to expand...

For the record I am against the department of high school being armed at all.
 
the said:
For the record I am against the department of high school being armed at all.
Click to expand...

yeeeah.....

Dangerous Hombres Society!
 
muir said:
Its shown on hulu...we can't watch that in the UK!

What's he saying to it?
Click to expand...

It is a segment called "Stephen Colbert Messes with Texas". It is Stephen Colbert making fun of some Gun Rights movements and stuff in Texas.
 
Dragon said:
It is a segment called "Stephen Colbert Messes with Texas". It is Stephen Colbert making fun of some Gun Rights movements and stuff in Texas.
Click to expand...

So he's not worried then that the government is preparing to deal with armed insurrection from the populace?
 
tempy22 said:
I just spent 20 mins reading this thread, absorbed only a minute fraction of what I read and I'm not very cranky and tired!!

So I will just briefly state my opinion. Psychiatrists can not be trusted. I lost 8 years of my life to the mental health system. It destroyed my body, my self esteem and has left me broken and untrusting. It's going to take years to fix the internal damage, and much longer for the emotional. Luckily I have an awesome therapist that I see one or twice a week.

When I was 14, I was diagnosed with clinical depression after a 15 minute appointment with my pediatrician who can barely speak English. From there, I was hospitalized, institutionalized, bullied, manipulated, etc etc by psychiatrists and therapists. They'd give me more and more pills to shut me up, and if I said I didn't like them, they'd threaten to hospitalize me if I stopped. Even after I had 2 full blown seizures from the damage the meds caused, not one doctor even hinted that the medication could be the cause.

After taking Aspirin for a headache, I became too ill to take my meds and came out of one hell of a fog!! They can not be trusted to decide who's unstable...

Btw, I'm on the autism spectrum and have ADHD, but NO SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS! They should be medicated, they are the ones who are insane.

I'll be happy to go into specifics if anyone has any questions. ^_^
Click to expand...

Sorry you had to go through all that.

As much as I'm inclined to agree with the conclusion you've come to from the experiences, I still think that, in purely logical terms, it's a hasty generalization based on this evidence alone. One must be wary of making logical missteps, as logic is an invaluable tool in arriving at the truth of matters.

But the overall trend does seem to match your experience, so I think you're right! It often manifests as a very terrible system that dehumanizes and oppresses the patients when it should be doing the opposite. Psychiatry and psychology need to become more solidly empirical, especially given the fact that so much rests in the balance.
 
Lerxst said:
Jesus, are the Pro-Gun Supporters intentionally dense, or just not like to read??

There is NO Constitutional right for an individual to own a firearm. None. It doesn't exist. It never has existed. The actual text is and always has been, "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."

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution explains the powers of Congress - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

Thereby, the meaning of the actual Second Amendment provides the Federal Government the right to regulate groups of people using firearms to protect the country. There's no individual mention or inference ever made to a person owing a firearm.

The idea that any individual has the right to keep and bear arms for their own sake has never been written anywhere in our Constitution. So quit using this tired, pathetic excuse of "Constitution right" to guise your own desire to simply "own a gun".
Click to expand...

Are you certain that it's never been interpreted by qualified lawmen so as to include the right of the individual? Much of what law strikes me to be is attempting to navigate vague language in such a way that the conclusion is supported by the premises. Do we know for sure what the Founding Fathers intended?

I guess what I'm saying is: if the above interpretation is your own, why should I trust you?

I can see a few reasons why, in the past, the right of the individual might have been necessary. There wasn't phone or internet communication, no jet planes or hummers, in those days, so say there was an invasion on whatever scale -- perhaps summoning the military would have taken a bit too long and the common folk needed a way to defend themselves in such an event.

And what about the frontiersmen who had to contend with Native American tribes living on the borders of "their" lands? Guns would definitely have been necessary then, and if for such a long time they had no right to own them, why wasn't legal action taken against them? Given that the government wanted people to go out and populate those lands, it makes sense for them to have allowed individuals to carry them, and thus they interpreted the words set down by the forefathers in such a way as to allow for this. In fact, wouldn't the contributors to the Constitution have foreseen this need? There was always strife with the Native Americans living at the fringes of whatever shape the country took at that point.

Is it apparent yet how the unique nature of our country's history and expansion through it might have made guns necessary for much of it? Doesn't it make logical sense that the Forefathers, wise and clairvoyant as they were, might have foreseen this?

This opens up the topic of the unexpectedly open-ended nature of the law. Words are but the vague shadows of the volumes we mean, after all.
 
Last edited:
subwayrider said:
Are you certain that it's never been interpreted by qualified lawmen so as to include the right of the individual? Much of what law strikes me to be is attempting to navigate vague language in such a way that the conclusion is supported by the premises. Do we know for sure what the Founding Fathers intended?

I guess what I'm saying is: if the above interpretation is your own, why should I trust you?

I can see a few reasons why, in the past, the right of the individual might have been necessary. There wasn't phone or internet communication in those days, so say there was an invasion on whatever scale -- perhaps summoning the military would have taken a bit too long and the common folk needed a way to defend themselves in such an event.

And what about the frontiersmen who had to contend with Native American tribes living on the borders of "their" lands? Guns would definitely have been necessary then, and if for such a long time they had no right to own them, why wasn't legal action taken against them? Given that the government wanted people to go out and populate those lands, it makes sense for them to have allowed individuals to carry them, and thus they interpreted the words set down by the forefathers in such a way as to allow for this. In fact, wouldn't the contributors to the Constitution have foreseen this need? There was always strife with the Native Americans living at the fringes of whatever shape the country took at that point.

This opens up the topic of the unexpectedly open-ended nature of the law. Words are but the vague shadows of the volumes we mean, after all.
Click to expand...

There have been qualified legal professionals who have different interpretations. Most of those go along the lines of, "In the spirit of..." when they talk about gun control and the Second Amendment. The problem is, the spirit of the law was written to allow the Federal Government to assume control and call upon gun owners to form those "Well regulated militias" to protect the country as the government sees fit.


Not a problem on its own, but, most anti-gun control, gun owners excuse for owning a gun is to "protect themselves from the 'Feds'". Therefor, gun owners using that excuse (most of the Tea Party nut-jobs in this country) to own their weapons are in clear violation of the "spirit of the law".

The law isn't written in to the laws of our country to allow citizens to take up arms against their own country. So most Second Amendment arguments fall to pieces once the people admit their motives are to "protect themselves against the Feds". In the eyes of the law, they, are the ones the militia is supposed to defend against:

"Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
 
just me said:
The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. quoted from the Bible............................................What exactly is the spirit of Feinstein's proposals? Why? http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Click to expand...

If the super rich people who run the US wanted to save lives they would use their vast fortunes to improve the living conditions of their countrymen/women

They would improve healthcare, education and housing. They wouldn't block new technologies that would improve peoples quality of life. They would change the tax system to share the wealth more evenly. They would ensure employment for all who needed it.

But they don't do these things...do you know why? Cos they don't give a damn about regular people. They are mass murderers currently engaged in wars across the world and are the biggest global arms dealers and drug dealers for that matter

They are not trying to unarm regular people to save lives they are doing it to disempower the people so that they can dominate them politically and economically
 
Tell me, [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION], exactly what are the names of these people whom you say controls everything. If you have done your homework, you must have current and not old names.
 
just me said:
Tell me, @muir , exactly what are the names of these people whom you say controls everything. If you have done your homework, you must have current and not old names.
Click to expand...

I haven't said they control everything

What i'm saying is that the ruling class in the USA who have managed to centralise the wealth so effectively now need to centralise the power if they are to hold onto the wealth

Its one thing getting lots of money, its another thing holding onto it

If you want to look into some of the established families who all seem to be interconnected by blood and/or business and who weild a lot of power then here's a few to get you started:




Then there are organisations such as: Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, J.P.Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, the freemasons, the jesuits, mossad that are well worth looking into if you want to see who has their hands on the levers of power

But this is just a snapshot of the power players. We are talking about people globally who have amassed fortunes and want to see a centralised power formed that can protect their fortunes so that they don't have to share them with people who aren't in their cosy clubs

The elite can also be seen operating through:


  • the council on foreign relations, chatham house, the club of rome, the bilderburg club, davos, the IMF, the world economic forum etc etc List of members of the CFR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations

    So essentially i'm talking about the top 1% of the top 1% who are all interconnected by business and by marriage who all want to centralise the worlds wealth and power under their control. They want to see the people of the western world disarmed so that they can be more easily controlled

Goldman sachs takeover of the US:

A Venn diagram released by Harvard law professor
and political activist Larry Lessig revealsthe shocking connections between our government and banking and investment giant Goldman Sachs.

Goldman-Sachs-Ferderal-Government.jpg



Goldman sachs takeover of europe:

Eurozone-Goldman-Sachs1.jpg


http://www.hangthebankers.com/goldman-sachs-takes-over-america-and-now-europe/
 
Last edited:
I read this in the New Yorker, I find it fascinating, the Colorado legislature just passed pretty strict gun control laws replete with back round checks, domestic violence clauses and ammunition clip limits. All mainly instigated by the "Batman" shooting in Colorado last summer. An incident which was called or suspected of being a red flag operation by members of this forum.

What is fascinating to me is the synchronistic nature of the described events. I am with those who feel there is always something happening but I don't know what it is......

[Hickenlooper] also started to think about prison reform. A former buisness associate had a son, Evan, who was getting into trouble with the law…When Evan was a teenager, Hickenlooper’s friend, a patent attorney, Sent his son to a boot camp in Jamaica for two months. But after Evan returned he committed an armed robbery and ended up in prison. He fought with other inmates and was placed in solitary confinement- what corrections officials refer to as administrative segregation. “The kid obviously has some kind of mental illness already,” Hickenlooper said “His dad would go visit him every two weeks, and he just saw him getting worse and worse and worse.”

[Hickenlooper] maintained a strong interest in prison reform, and when he interviewed a candidate for Colorado’s top corrections officer he asked the applicant, Tom Clements, for his thoughts on administrative segregation. Clements said that it was being overused and was too expensive; he esitmated that a third to half of the prisoners in solitary shouldn’t be there. “The real harm is what it does to these people,” he told the Governor. Clements got the job, held hearings on the issue, and cut the number of inmates in solitary in half….

…The night before Hickenlooper signed the new gun laws, Clements…was shot to death at his front door, allegedly by a former inmate who had been released straight from solitary confinement of January 28[SUP]th[/SUP]. When the police finally caught up with the man, who had fled to Texas, Hickenlooper learned that the alleged killer was Evan Ebel, his friend’s troubled son.
Click to expand...
Ryan Lizza The New Yorker, May 13 2013 p26
 
Last edited:
Massive Secret Database Of Gun Owners

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stevefriess/how-the-nra-built-a-massive-secret-database-of-gun-owners
WASHINGTON – The National Rifle Association has rallied gun owners – and raised tens of millions of dollars – campaigning against the threat of a national database of firearms or their owners.
But in fact, the sort of vast, secret database the NRA often warns of already exists, despite having been assembled largely without the knowledge or consent of gun owners. It is housed in the Virginia offices of the NRA itself. The country’s largest privately held database of current, former, and prospective gun owners is one of the powerful lobby’s secret weapons, expanding its influence well beyond its estimated 3 million members and bolstering its political supremacy.
That database has been built through years of acquiring gun permit registration lists from state and county offices, gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructors and by buying lists of attendees of gun shows, subscribers to gun magazines, and more, BuzzFeed has learned.
Click to expand...

so like there is no way the ATF could have access to that (sarcasm)
 
My opinion is very straight forward. Nothing of the constitution should be violated, ever.

I'm amused of how easily people are manipulated by the media. Gun violence has only gone down since the 80s-90s, but the media would have you believe there has been more school shootings, when that isn't true. They switched from the fear of scary black people being the enemy, to your kids being in danger in the safe white school you put them in. Guns have been a hot topic recently. What I know from my limited experience watching America is that politicians will take advantage of anything that causes controversy, and anything that instils fear. They don't give a shit about guns, abortion, unemployment, education, nor anything. Anyone with half a brain knows it's all about money and power, and the politicians will play all of you like pawns, arguing over shit that either cannot be changed, or wont improve our lives in the grand scheme even if they were changed.

Guns aren't a problem in this country, people are. An issue that stems from a place much higher than you'll ever reach. So fuck all your egos that would have you believe your opinions are worth anything.
 
Stu said:
I read this in the New Yorker, I find it fascinating, the Colorado legislature just passed pretty strict gun control laws replete with back round checks, domestic violence clauses and ammunition clip limits. All mainly instigated by the "Batman" shooting in Colorado last summer. An incident which was called or suspected of being a red flag operation by members of this forum.

What is fascinating to me is the synchronistic nature of the described events. I am with those who feel there is always something happening but I don't know what it is......


Ryan Lizza The New Yorker, May 13 2013 p26
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people DO really know what is going on, but they are not giving themselves permission to fully assimilate that reality because it overturns their comfortable reality where elements within the government or rather behind the government are not trying to disarm the population as a step towards creating a totalitarian police state

People aren't rational creatures, they are creatures capable of rational thought. They will only belive what they want to believe...so to face a harsh reality they have to give themselves permission to do that

People will cling to falsehoods even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary...its a fascinating, but slightly disheartening process to watch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top