The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 302
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Our 'government' owns one of the world's greatest armed forces. Don't you think we are already outgunned by our government? See... I don't get it.


    8 members found this post helpful.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun. 22, 2004
    Posts
    4,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stolen virtue View Post
    At the time being able to own firearms allowed the people of the US to defend themselves against potential British tyrants and perhaps others who would dictate the new laws of a new nation. So much of the communities were very rural and governments were being established that could allow people to become dictators within their own rural areas. By establishing the rights of individuals to be armed, it made the government (people acting in that capacity) less powerfull to dictate tyrancy to the community. People could essentially take over a tyrancy of government by their weapons.

    We still have a right to own weapons but the courts have ruled the 2nd ammendment to be more of a right of self defense in more current times. The message of not allowing the government to be a tyrant to the communities is still valid, however, an individual or group will never effect change by weapons that they own. Currently voting and being involved and taking our politicians to task on their decisions is more effective.

    That is what I see the message to be. And thank you Mygiantpony for the thoughtfull question.

    I now have a tree to trim and two extremely curious kitties who are experiencing their first ever Christmas tree. I am hoping the tree will be still standing by morning....
    And thank you for the thoughtful response. Food for thought, moreso than some of the knee jerk responses we've seen.

    And I must go get a shower and mix cookie dough. God I stink to high heaven. Barn chores were particularly onerous tonight.
    http://www.tbhsa.com/index.html

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


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun. 24, 2005
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    8,343

    Default

    I live in a new suburb, but far out of town (it's 40 to 50 miles round trip to almost anywhere I go), and I live in an area with tons of current and retired military. If I get in trouble I am much more likely to use my shotgun for defense, or get the neighbors help, than I am to get a sheriff's deputy in time to help me. However, when not in use my shotgun is secured, and visitors don't even know where it is or have access to it. If I had someone in my household with any type of problem, then I would get rid of the gun, or have it secured where only I could get access.

    The teacher in Connecticut who died (the shooter's mother) kept a large number of weapons in a household with a very troubled person, who either visited frequently or lived there. She was a fool, and her denial cost that woman her life, and doomed 26 innocent people to death.
    You can't fix stupid-Ron White


    7 members found this post helpful.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    weird double post



  5. #125
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
    So those who defend the second amendment agree to serve in state militias? That's how I read it.

    Everyone except politicians.
    "How does it feel to be one of the beautiful people?" Julian Lennon


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    9,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prairiewind2 View Post
    Why? Some actual reasoning would be helpful here.

    Liz
    The founding fathers were 1) dealing with a fledgling nation, so therefore state's rights and state militias were still important at that time, 2) there were issues between Americans and native Americans, and 3) people still hunted for food out of necessity. Having guns is one thing, but having the same weapons as a national army (which didn't really exist then) is QUITE another.

    Until the relatively recent Supreme Court ruling, there was a long-standing debate about whether the right to bear arms was referring to individuals or state militias. I doubt the founding fathers would have supported individuals owning tanks or the like. They were reasonable men.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MyGiantPony View Post
    And in my opinion, the reason stands as valid today as it did in the 1700's. I hope it's never needed, but if that time would ever come I sure as hell don't want the government being the only ones with guns.
    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    Our 'government' owns one of the world's greatest armed forces. Don't you think we are already outgunned by our government? See... I don't get it.
    I don't get it either. See, GiantPony, for whatever gun or plan you have are you convinced it will be effective in the face of a bad government? While that may have been true for a few guys in Philadelphia in the 18th century, I don't think the extrapolation to your average American in the 21st century holds.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    5 members found this post helpful.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by supershorty628 View Post
    I'm not one advocating for banning all guns, and I don't know enough about semi-automatic versus automatic versus bolt versus pump-action versus lever-action guns to be able to really say anything about those (other than thinking that there is no reason for a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon or an assault rifle).

    I do think, though, that there's clearly something wrong with the system. I don't think we can pretend that everything with current gun legislation is working and is hunky-dory, because there have been so many cases just this year of mass shootings. Not with as many casualties as yesterday in Newtown, but too many. Yes, people who really want to get those guns right now to do bad things can do so, I understand that they'll do just about anything to get them.

    But... we need to change something, and pretending that everything is peachy keen with the way things are is not going to do it.
    First... Owning a fully automatic weapon is legal IF one gets a class 3 firearm license. Who are you to say that no one needs it. The same person that says no more than 1 horse per person? Or PETA that says no one should own a horse to ride.

    As for doing "Something" In a serious discussion of preventing these mass attacks ...

    Deadly threat (arming teachers) will not deter them since many of the attackers suicide or are killed.

    So what do the attackers want ? They want the publicity or attention. Otherwise they would die nameless and ignored.

    Laws preventing the media from naming or showing of the attacker AND the attack would remove the cause.

    But... like gun control .. Gov't restrictions on the press run into constitutional problems. (see first and second amendments) A potential solution is people doing the reverse of what the attackers desire. We can tune out any media showing the attacker. Boycott any station that broadcasts a picture of the attacker or mentions his/her name. Let the media know you & your friends will tune them out.

    " Forget the attacker, remember the victims. "


    3 members found this post helpful.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Aug. 20, 2006
    Location
    wyoming
    Posts
    498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grayarabpony View Post
    The founding fathers were 1) dealing with a fledgling nation, so therefore state's rights and state militias were still important at that time, 2) there were issues between Americans and native Americans, and 3) people still hunted for food out of necessity. Having guns is one thing, but having the same weapons as a national army (which didn't really exist then) is QUITE another.

    Until the relatively recent Supreme Court ruling, there was a long-standing debate about whether the right to bear arms was referring to individuals or state militias. I doubt the founding fathers would have supported individuals owning tanks or the like. They were reasonable men.
    Thank you for explaining what you believe! I will point out that there are people around here who still hunt out of necessity. While we have some of the wealthiest people on earth in my state - at least part time - we also have some of the poorest people in the country. They do rely on hunting to fill their refrigerators.

    Many people in this state also live very remotely. Heck, almost everything here is remote. There are many predators of all sorts, and they take livestock. So if you live outside of a town, it is almost a necessity to have some sort of weapon.

    I do believe that the founding fathers would be flummoxed by our modern weapons. I also absolutely believe that they intended citizens to be armed in order to protect themselves from their government, if need be. As far as bigger, heavier weapons went - well, the founding fathers (hereafter known as FF ) may not have dealt with them in the 2nd Amendment, but even back then, there were cannons and such. They probably didn't expect the average joe to own his own cannon (though they didn't forbid it) but they may well have expected the average town or city or state to have such weapons.

    I try to look at it from their perspective. They had just fought a brutal, bloody war against their own government. We think of the Brits as a different country now. But the colonists were Brits. They would have been very paranoid about large governments - and if you know anything about the hammering out of the new country and its governing documents, you know that the FF absolutely were paranoid of big government and protective of their various states' rights.

    So I don't pretend to know what they would think today but they made it pretty clear what they thought back then. Personally, I think they would be horrified at the power the fedgov wields these days, and the relative lack of power we the people have.

    I also believe they would not be foolish enough to blame the gun for the crime.

    ETA - Back then, most everyone would have been familiar with the handling of firearms. These days, very few people are really familiar with that. So I think it is possible that the FF would have agreed that people these days should at the least have training before they could purchase firearms. They might also agree that criminals convicted of gun crimes shouldn't have firearms. Ditto mentally ill people. After all, firearms aren't needed for survival anymore.

    Liz


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    3,938

    Default

    This is pretty much where I'm at with this. What is so wrong with our society that we are producing people like this. It's happening more and more often.
    Morgan Freeman also put some blame on the media. How it is so sensationalized. This guy will always be remembered by name - the victims?? Not so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melelio View Post
    It's not really about guns in this instance (that made you post this)....how about the man in China who killed 22 with a knife?

    If someone is feeling violent, there are many other means available to them to do damage.

    This issue truly is about the broken society we've created with our gluttony and lack of respect for other human beings not matter WHAT they believe/espouse/ etc., etc. When someone reaches bottom, whether you judge them "mentally unbalanced" (what IS balanced, anyhow?) things snap, and things happen.

    Why do people reach bottom? Look around your country.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Mar. 10, 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    5,108

    Default

    I saw that Morgan Freeman statement too-snopes says it wasn't MF that said it but it got attributed to him I assume to lend some attention.

    I agree with the sentiment but it's good to be clear on the author, or at least who the author is not.



  12. #132
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    3,938

    Default

    OOH Bummer - Thanks for clearing that up. They are calling him brilliant for it. LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboymom View Post
    I saw that Morgan Freeman statement too-snopes says it wasn't MF that said it but it got attributed to him I assume to lend some attention.

    I agree with the sentiment but it's good to be clear on the author, or at least who the author is not.



  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    Let me interrupt this Founding Fathers lovefest for a sec.

    My High School American History teacher pointed out that the Constitution had more provisions pertaining to protecting property than life. His interpretation was that the FFs put their attention where their personal concern was: 18th-century gentlemen were more worried about having their a$$es kicked by a government than by disgruntled neighbor.

    To me, that means these dudes were bourgeois already. And by and large, it's still the poor who suffer for the Second Amendment for the same reasons as were true in the 18th century: Have enough money and you'll rarely be put in the position to give up your life.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    2 members found this post helpful.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Mar. 10, 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    5,108

    Default

    LOL about MF...


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,912

    Default

    The Second Amendment: I was watching Face the Nation today, with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) being interviewed. He said they are looking at two things here: lowering the power of automatic assault weapons, and lowering the size of the clips down so they can only hold ten bullets. They are not looking at taking away anyone's guns, which is the fear that has been promoted by the NRA to the point that people now have a very tight, narrow view of what they are trying to accomplish. What the senators are trying to do is get everyone to meet somewhere in the middle on this. Most reasonable people, be they gun owners or not, would not have a problem with these limitations. He also commented that every other amendment has limitations on it. I think they are thinking it is time for limitations on this one as well. Republicans who were called to be interviewed either never returned the call, or outright refused to come onto the show. I don't know how many were called. It was an interesting interview.

    After watching four of these slaughter events go on in this state since we moved here, and knowing the nightly violence in the inner cities, DH and I are for these limitations, and I think there will be a lot of support for reasonable limitations placed on the Second Amendment. Really, we've had enough here.
    "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.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Schumer is a schmuck and while he might get something to the senate floor, it will go nowhere in the house.

    He wants to go back to 1994 and there are millions and millions of us all around the country that will simply not allow that.

    So you think it's time for limitations on the Second Amendment? Huh? So the thousands of pages of federal and state laws and regulations on the books are not limitations? GMAFB.

    As for what Connecticut wants, we elsewhere don't care. If you want to ban guns completely, confiscate them all, and melt them down in your state go right ahead.

    Leave the rest of us the hell alone.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Mar. 22, 2005
    Location
    Where it is perpetually winter
    Posts
    5,084

    Default

    Chief7, I think that sounds great (and somewhat reasonable), but I suspect it will not go over well on here.



  18. #138
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    If I were the NRA person, hoping to defend the right to give citizenry arms on the basis of the Second Amendment, I'd logically have to argue for individuals having the fire power that matches what the government has. After all, so the Second Amendment folks argue, the purpose is to insure a level playing field in the fight between individuals and governments. No appeasing pop-guns for the public and ICBMs for the military, right?
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by supershorty628 View Post
    Chief7, I think that sounds great (and somewhat reasonable), but I suspect it will not go over well on here.
    So says the person who admits knowing nothing about firearms.

    Brilliant.

    That is why we have a no compromise mentality.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Mar. 22, 2005
    Location
    Where it is perpetually winter
    Posts
    5,084

    Default

    Let's not be facetious and pretend that everyone who has an opinion on something is an expert.

    Nope, I don't know much about guns! But at least I'm willing to admit that, and I'm trying to find a solution to a bigger problem - a solution that does not solely focus on firearms, as indicated by an absurd number of posts I've made.

    No compromise mentalities do not make progress.


    2 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
  •