The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 302
  1. #1

    Default 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.'

    How do you interpret it?
    http://www.tbhsa.com/index.html

    Originally Posted by JSwan
    I love feral children. They taste like chicken.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep. 20, 2005
    Posts
    3,504

    Default

    Not the way most people do.
    "Are you yawning? You don't ride well enough to yawn. I can yawn, because I ride better than you. Meredith Michael Beerbaum can yawn. But you? Not so much..."
    -George Morris


    9 members found this post helpful.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun. 22, 2004
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    Guess I should post my opinion.

    I don't think it has anything to do with hunting - so many people who think we need more gun control seem to say "oh, I don't have a problem with hunting".

    I think it's more about The People being militarily prepared - be it to defend the country, or to defend themselves.

    I also think the Founding Fathers had a true concern that it was necessary for citizens to be able to protect themselves FROM the government.
    http://www.tbhsa.com/index.html

    Originally Posted by JSwan
    I love feral children. They taste like chicken.


    20 members found this post helpful.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr. 25, 2011
    Posts
    856

    Default

    If I had my choice of Constitutional rights, I would choose the right to life over owning an assault weapon.


    14 members found this post helpful.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec. 14, 2012
    Location
    AL
    Posts
    7

    Default

    New member and longtime lurker so my flame-suit is ready. Personally I would prefer the ability to defend myself and loved ones from any aggressive force (foreign or domestic) over the 'right to life'. Who are you depending on to enforce your 'right to life'? If the poo really hits the fan, would you trust the government over your friends & family to protect you?


    26 members found this post helpful.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MyGiantPony View Post
    '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.'

    How do you interpret it?
    Militia: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in an emergency. A body of citizens organized for military service.

    News flash: we don't have a militia in this country anymore. It's now called a DRAFT. And, those that show up when called, don't bring their own guns.

    The second amendment was written early in our government's history. We were poor, unorganized with no viable military, and largely agrarian. I think a lot of citizens today need a history lesson.

    The misinterpretation of the second amendment sickens me, particularly when a bunch of gun-toting yahoos use it to keep gun-control laws off the table.

    But hey..."guns don't kill people. People kill people." The NRA's go-to slogan.

    Tell that to the parents and families of those that were killed today.
    Fan of the Swedish Chef


    54 members found this post helpful.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep. 20, 2005
    Posts
    3,504

    Default

    Go Fish, not to be creepy, but I think I love you.
    "Are you yawning? You don't ride well enough to yawn. I can yawn, because I ride better than you. Meredith Michael Beerbaum can yawn. But you? Not so much..."
    -George Morris


    16 members found this post helpful.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr. 10, 2006
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    You go, Go Fish
    We couldn't all be cowboys, so some of us are clowns.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2010
    Location
    Westford, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,587

    Default

    Way to go, Go Fish.

    I don't think the Second Amendment is really relevant anymore. Weaponry has changed. There aren't going to be any farmers fending off government forces who mean business with their personal weapons.


    16 members found this post helpful.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May. 22, 2008
    Location
    East Tenn
    Posts
    197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vert View Post
    New member and longtime lurker so my flame-suit is ready. Personally I would prefer the ability to defend myself and loved ones from any aggressive force (foreign or domestic) over the 'right to life'. Who are you depending on to enforce your 'right to life'? If the poo really hits the fan, would you trust the government over your friends & family to protect you?
    This is stated far more eloquently than I could put together. Well said, truly.

    For those who want stronger gun laws, what do you propose? How would you get the firearms currently "out there" back? Send out a letter and hope everyone brings them to the town square? Unfortunately, there is no way to take guns away from criminals. Meth is illegal, yet it still on the streets. Making firearms illegal will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and make the black market larger. People would find other ways to kill each other. People have been killing people long before guns were invented.
    I feel like the root of the problem is how this country handles people with mental illnesses. How do these people continue to "slip through the cracks"? Work to fix the actual cause of the problem, not the symptoms. I have my carry permit, we are a multiple firearm household, but *I* am not about to run out and commit murder. I am keep my firearms in a safe place, and I certainly would not give my firearms up if the government (or whoever) came after them. Because, if poo really hits the fan, I would NOT trust our government over my friends and family to protect me.
    My heart goes out to the people effected in this tragedy, but my first thought wasn’t “Take the guns away!” it was “why didn’t a single person in the school have a firearm? Why wasn’t this person taken out before he could harm so many defenseless people?”
    In a perfect world, it would be all cupcakes and rainbows, but it’s not, and it’s never going to be. Taking away the right the bear arms won’t make it perfect…it will just leave us defenseless.


    26 members found this post helpful.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr. 10, 2006
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Unprovoked, I do agree it is hard to stop the train now.... the guns are out there, hard to account for them. I only know that in the UK things are a whooole lot different where gun culture is concerned.

    I also do think it is a social problem, that runs deeper than just gun control.
    We couldn't all be cowboys, so some of us are clowns.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    5,786

    Default

    Go Fish is so right on. I don't like guns, but I don't know what the answer is. I don't know that we can really do much of anything about guns. I feel so helpless.

    I think, unprovoked, you are on the right track. We have gotten so away from caring from each other and everyone gets what they want, that people we used to take care of are now on the streets.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,914

    Default

    I'm with Go Fish on this one. Too much too soon in this state. The Petit murders, the Hartford Distributors massacre, and now this. It's too much here. Just a heart break.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein

    http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/...2011%20Photos/


    3 members found this post helpful.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr. 10, 2006
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post
    We have gotten so away from caring from each other and everyone gets what they want, that people we used to take care of are now on the streets.
    I do agree with this... I have been thinking a lot today of my uncle, who was a schizophrenic and was highly allergic to the meds used to treat it. So, he was unmedicated, and at times, violent. He lived in a fantasy world. If it were not for my grandma, my mom, and her sisters literally being on top of him 24/7, ensuring he was in a safe place (often a locked psych ward), etc. he well could have been a major problem. The psych ward was an ugly place oftentimes, and he had many issues there with other patients who were also highly disturbed, but he was not a risk to society at large. My grandma was a tiny woman, my uncle 6'3 and close to 300lbs. As much as it broke her heart sometimes to call the cops or have him admitted, she knew she had to do it not only for herself but for the community as a whole.

    I wish mental illness was not so taboo, that services were easier to obtain, that people who needed help, got it.
    We couldn't all be cowboys, so some of us are clowns.


    14 members found this post helpful.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar. 22, 2005
    Location
    Where it is perpetually winter
    Posts
    5,085

    Default

    Here is my question, and I am the first to admit that I am young and naive and perhaps too idealistic about things sometimes:

    I currently live somewhere where hunting is a way of life, and for some people, it's how they get their food for the winter, so I've gotten a new perspective on some of the areas of the fight against gun legislation. I've been talking to some of these people today and we came to a bit of a compromise, and I'm wondering if it can be realistic or not. I suspect not for a multitude of reasons, but I can always hope...

    I personally think that people should have the right to own guns with the proper permits, training, and such... as long as they are handguns or guns used for hunting. That is not something that I think should be taken away, for several reasons, nor do I think that realistically, that right could be taken away.

    However:

    I'm wondering if not allowing civilians to have assault rifles would be feasible. Why would someone need to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon? It's certainly not going to be used for hunting, and those are the guns that can cause the most damage to the most people in a short amount of time. Yes, anyone can shoot someone with a pistol or a rifle - I'm not saying that they can't or don't - but you don't hear about as many mass shootings with those types of guns as with assault rifles. Why does your average Joe citizen need to own a gun like that?

    Just a thought.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep. 22, 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    1,759

    Default

    Anybody ever heard of this happening at a gun range? No, because the psycho knows everybody there is armed and can defend themselves. They plan and execute these sick mass murders in places where you would never think to be armed. The movies, schools, etc. But I'm one of the ones who is for putting more guns in the law abiding citizens hands. And letting them carry them. All it would have taken is for one person in that shool to have a gun. Bullet proof best or not a head shot still works.

    If a teacher with a personal weapon could have saved even one innocent child's life it's worth it in my book.

    I'd also e willing to bet anybody deranged enough to take out his rage on beautiful innocent children is going to find a way to do it, with or without guns.
    You can't fix stupid.... but you can breed it!


    19 members found this post helpful.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun. 22, 2004
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Fish View Post

    The misinterpretation of the second amendment sickens me, particularly when a bunch of gun-toting yahoos use it to keep gun-control laws off the table.
    Is the name calling really necessary? There are a lot of gun owners on this board, and I don't think any of us are "yahoos". I think we all take our gun ownership pretty seriously.
    http://www.tbhsa.com/index.html

    Originally Posted by JSwan
    I love feral children. They taste like chicken.


    15 members found this post helpful.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun. 22, 2004
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by supershorty628 View Post
    Here is my question, and I am the first to admit that I am young and naive and perhaps too idealistic about things sometimes:

    I currently live somewhere where hunting is a way of life, and for some people, it's how they get their food for the winter, so I've gotten a new perspective on some of the areas of the fight against gun legislation. I've been talking to some of these people today and we came to a bit of a compromise, and I'm wondering if it can be realistic or not. I suspect not for a multitude of reasons, but I can always hope...

    I personally think that people should have the right to own guns with the proper permits, training, and such... as long as they are handguns or guns used for hunting. That is not something that I think should be taken away, for several reasons, nor do I think that realistically, that right could be taken away.

    However:

    I'm wondering if not allowing civilians to have assault rifles would be feasible. Why would someone need to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon? It's certainly not going to be used for hunting, and those are the guns that can cause the most damage to the most people in a short amount of time. Yes, anyone can shoot someone with a pistol or a rifle - I'm not saying that they can't or don't - but you don't hear about as many mass shootings with those types of guns as with assault rifles. Why does your average Joe citizen need to own a gun like that?

    Just a thought.
    Again, where does the Second Amendment say "the right to have a gun to hunt"? That's not what it's about.

    And frankly, if the military/government is allowed to have a weapon, then yeah, I think it's my right as a citizen to have the equal right to that weapon.
    http://www.tbhsa.com/index.html

    Originally Posted by JSwan
    I love feral children. They taste like chicken.


    14 members found this post helpful.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul. 22, 2012
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by supershorty628 View Post
    However:

    I'm wondering if not allowing civilians to have assault rifles would be feasible. Why would someone need to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon? It's certainly not going to be used for hunting, and those are the guns that can cause the most damage to the most people in a short amount of time. Yes, anyone can shoot someone with a pistol or a rifle - I'm not saying that they can't or don't - but you don't hear about as many mass shootings with those types of guns as with assault rifles. Why does your average Joe citizen need to own a gun like that?

    Just a thought.
    I concur with this - there is simply no valid reason for a civilian to have an assault rifle. I also think we need to regulate the ammunition available. The average hunting rifle shoots the same bullet as a semi-automatic assault rifle...but it holds, what, 3 rounds? instead of 30-40-50 etc. There is no reason for civilians to have handgun clips with 15 rounds. If you can't do what you intend to do with more than one or two bullets, then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    'm also firmly of the opinion that in a perfect world, you should be required to have a psychiatrist's clearance before purchasing a weapon. You lose the right to doctor-patient confidentiality when you're looking to acquire the power to kill someone with the pull of a trigger. Alas, I doubt that would work in reality.


    10 members found this post helpful.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul. 22, 2012
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MyGiantPony View Post
    Again, where does the Second Amendment say "the right to have a gun to hunt"? That's not what it's about.

    And frankly, if the military/government is allowed to have a weapon, then yeah, I think it's my right as a citizen to have the equal right to that weapon.
    So...where's my nuclear bomb????


    17 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Colorado Amendment 64
    By dani0303 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: Nov. 8, 2012, 07:03 PM
  2. Replies: 56
    Last Post: Jun. 26, 2012, 03:24 PM
  3. Replies: 283
    Last Post: Sep. 21, 2005, 01:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness